Dominican Republic

Natural Language Generation (NLG) evaluation is a multifaceted task requiring assessment of multiple desirable criteria, e.g., fluency, coherency, coverage, relevance, adequacy, overall quality, etc. Across existing datasets for 6 NLG tasks, we observe that the human evaluation scores on these multiple criteria are often not correlated. For example, there is a very low correlation between human scores on fluency and data coverage for the task of structured data to text generation. This suggests that the current recipe of proposing new automatic evaluation metrics for NLG by showing that they correlate well with scores assigned by humans for a single criteria (overall quality) alone is inadequate. Indeed, our extensive study involving 25 automatic evaluation metrics across 6 different tasks and 18 different evaluation criteria shows that there is no single metric which correlates well with human scores on all desirable criteria, for most NLG tasks. Given this situation, we propose CheckLists for better design and evaluation of automatic metrics. We design templates which target a specific criteria (e.g., coverage) and perturb the output such that the quality gets affected only along this specific criteria (e.g., the coverage drops). We show that existing evaluation metrics are not robust against even such simple perturbations and disagree with scores assigned by humans to the perturbed output. The proposed templates thus allow for a fine-grained assessment of automatic evaluation metrics exposing their limitations and will facilitate better design, analysis and evaluation of such metrics. Our templates and code are available at https://iitmnlp.github.io/EvalEval/

EMNLP 2021

Perturbation CheckLists for Evaluating NLG Evaluation Metrics

EMNLP 2021 is planned to be a hybrid event in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, with both on-site and fully virtual participation possible. The experience for on-site participants would closely approximate a normal pre-COVID *ACL conference, with 5-6 thematically organized parallel sessions and live Q/A and interactive discussion immediately after the talks. Presentations by virtual participants will be equitably interleaved with those of on-site participants, projected on the auditorium screens as if on-site, and also followed immediately by live Q/A and interactive discussion at a time during reasonable waking hours for the virtual presenter. For all participants, on-site and virtual, who are unable to attend a session due to either time-zone issues or because they are participating in another session live, talk recordings and slides will be available online at a minimum after the live presentation (and in many cases before as well), and questions may be submitted in advance on session-specific discussion boards and answered live in session with the usual visual aids if desired.

<iframe style="width:700px;height:400px" src="https://online.fliphtml5.com/ebtyf/ceby/"  seamless="seamless" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" ></iframe>

Please Note: The EMNLP registration system is not currently connected to the underline site as we are still in the process of building out EMNLP 2021. You will receive access instructions from underline the week of November 1st. 

Access is given only to EMNLP upon registration, if you have not registered please do so [here](https://2021.emnlp.org/registration).

Registered attendees will receive access the week of November 1st.

EMNLP 2021 is planned to be a hybrid event in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, with both on-site and fully virtual participation possible.

poster

Previous work has shown that human evaluations in NLP are notoriously under-powered. Here, we argue that there are two common factors which make this problem even worse: NLP studies usually (a) treat ordinal data as interval data and (b) operate under high variance settings while the differences they are hoping to detect are often subtle. We demonstrate through simulation that ordinal mixed effects models are better able to detect small differences between models, especially in high variance settings common in evaluations of generated texts. We release tools for researchers to conduct their own power analysis and test their assumptions. We also make recommendations for improving statistical power.

What happens if you treat ordinal ratings as interval data? Human evaluations in NLP are even more under-powered than you think

Recent years have seen an increasing need for gender-neutral and inclusive language. Within the field of NLP, there are various mono- and bilingual use cases where gender inclusive language is appropriate, if not preferred due to ambiguity or uncertainty in terms of the gender of referents. In this work, we present a rule-based and a neural approach to gender-neutral rewriting for English along with manually curated synthetic data (WinoBias+) and natural data (OpenSubtitles and Reddit) benchmarks. A detailed manual and automatic evaluation highlights how our NeuTral Rewriter, trained on data generated by the rule-based approach, obtains word error rates (WER) below 0.18% on synthetic, in-domain and out-domain test sets.

NeuTral Rewriter: A Rule-Based and Neural Approach to Automatic Rewriting into Gender Neutral Alternatives

Reasoning over commonsense knowledge bases (CSKBs) whose elements are in the form of free-text is an important yet hard task in NLP. While CSKB completion only fills the missing links within the domain of the CSKB, CSKB population is alternatively proposed with the goal of reasoning unseen assertions from external resources. In this task, CSKBs are grounded to a large-scale eventuality (activity, state, and event) graph to discriminate whether novel triples from the eventuality graph are plausible or not. However, existing evaluations on the population task are either not accurate (automatic evaluation with randomly sampled negative examples) or of small scale (human annotation). In this paper, we benchmark the CSKB population task with a new large-scale dataset by first aligning four popular CSKBs, and then presenting a high-quality human-annotated evaluation set to probe neural models’ commonsense reasoning ability. We also propose a novel inductive commonsense reasoning model that reasons over graphs. Experimental results show that generalizing commonsense reasoning on unseen assertions is inherently a hard task. Models achieving high accuracy during training perform poorly on the evaluation set, with a large gap between human performance. Codes and data are available at https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/CSKB-Population.

Benchmarking Commonsense Knowledge Base Population with an Effective Evaluation Dataset

Dialogue summarization has drawn much attention recently. Especially in the customer service domain, agents could use dialogue summaries to help boost their works by quickly knowing customer’s issues and service progress. These applications require summaries to contain the perspective of a single speaker and have a clear topic flow structure, while neither are available in existing datasets. Therefore, in this paper, we introduce a novel Chinese dataset for Customer Service Dialogue Summarization (CSDS). CSDS improves the abstractive summaries in two aspects: (1) In addition to the overall summary for the whole dialogue, role-oriented summaries are also provided to acquire different speakers’ viewpoints. (2) All the summaries sum up each topic separately, thus containing the topic-level structure of the dialogue. We define tasks in CSDS as generating the overall summary and different role-oriented summaries for a given dialogue. Next, we compare various summarization methods on CSDS, and experiment results show that existing methods are prone to generate redundant and incoherent summaries. Besides, the performance becomes much worse when analyzing the performance on role-oriented summaries and topic structures. We hope that this study could benchmark Chinese dialogue summarization and benefit further studies.

CSDS: A Fine-Grained Chinese Dataset for Customer Service Dialogue Summarization

The Winograd Schema (WS) has been proposed as a test for measuring commonsense capabilities of models. Recently, pre-trained language model-based approaches have boosted performance on some WS benchmarks but the source of improvement is still not clear. This paper suggests that the apparent progress on WS may not necessarily reflect progress in commonsense reasoning. To support this claim, we first show that the current evaluation method of WS is sub-optimal and propose a modification that uses twin sentences for evaluation. We also propose two new baselines that indicate the existence of artifacts in WS benchmarks. We then develop a method for evaluating WS-like sentences in a zero-shot setting to account for the commonsense reasoning abilities acquired during the pretraining and observe that popular language models perform randomly in this setting when using our more strict evaluation. We conclude that the observed progress is mostly due to the use of supervision in training WS models, which is not likely to successfully support all the required commonsense reasoning skills and knowledge. The code and evaluation are available at: https://github.com/yanaiela/winograd_square_one

Back to Square One: Artifact Detection, Training and Commonsense Disentanglement in the Winograd Schema

“Michael Jordan published a new paper on machine learning”. Did they mean MJ the scientist or MJ the basketball player? The answer is obvious to humans, but for entity linking systems it remains complicated: when in doubt, they tend to output more common entities even if it means losing relevance. We define this phenomenon as entity overshadowing and explore it using ShadowLink, our new dataset made to bring overshadowed entities to light. The results are intriguing: modern state-of-the-art methods get lost and confused, while a good old model from 2011 achieves the best scores. Our presentation will discuss how and why this happens.

Robustness Evaluation of Entity Disambiguation Using Prior Probes: the Case of Entity Overshadowing

Enabling open-domain dialogue systems to ask clarifying questions when appropriate is an important direction for improving the quality of the system response. Namely, for cases when a user request is not specific enough for a conversation system to provide an answer right away, it is desirable to ask a clarifying question to increase the chances of retrieving a satisfying answer. To address the problem of `asking clarifying questions in open-domain dialogues': (1) we collect and release a new dataset focused on open-domain single- and multi-turn conversations, (2) we benchmark several state-of-the-art neural baselines, and (3) we propose a pipeline consisting of offline and online steps for evaluating the quality of clarifying questions in various dialogues. These contributions are suitable as a foundation for further research.

Building and Evaluating Open-Domain Dialogue Corpora with Clarifying Questions

Since state-of-the-art approaches to offensive language detection rely on supervised learning, it is crucial to quickly adapt them to the continuously evolving scenario of social media. While several approaches have been proposed to tackle the problem from an algorithmic perspective, so to reduce the need for annotated data, less attention has been paid to the quality of these data. Following a trend that has emerged recently, we focus on the level of agreement among annotators while selecting data to create offensive language datasets, a task involving a high level of subjectivity. Our study comprises the creation of three novel datasets of English tweets covering different topics and having five crowd-sourced judgments each. We also present an extensive set of experiments showing that selecting training and test data according to different levels of annotators' agreement has a strong effect on classifiers performance and robustness. Our findings are further validated in cross-domain experiments and studied using a popular benchmark dataset. We show that such hard cases, where low agreement is present, are not necessarily due to poor-quality annotation and we advocate for a higher presence of ambiguous cases in future datasets, particularly in test sets, to better account for the different points of view expressed online.

Agreeing to Disagree: Annotating Offensive Language Datasets with Annotators' Disagreement

We introduce a high-quality and large-scale Vietnamese-English parallel dataset of 3.02M sentence pairs, which is 2.9M pairs larger than the benchmark Vietnamese-English machine translation corpus IWSLT15. We conduct experiments comparing strong neural baselines and well-known automatic translation engines on our dataset and find that in both automatic and human evaluations: the best performance is obtained by fine-tuning the pre-trained sequence-to-sequence denoising auto-encoder mBART. To our best knowledge, this is the first large-scale Vietnamese-English machine translation study. We hope our publicly available dataset and study can serve as a starting point for future research and applications on Vietnamese-English machine translation. We release our dataset at: https://github.com/VinAIResearch/PhoMT

PhoMT: A High-Quality and Large-Scale Benchmark Dataset for Vietnamese-English Machine Translation

Although many studies use the LIWC lexicon to show the existence of verbal leakage cues in lie detection datasets, none mention how verbal leakage cues are influenced by means of data collection, or the impact thereof on the performance of models. In this paper, we study verbal leakage cues to understand the effect of the data construction method on their significance, and examine the relationship between such cues and models’ validity. The LIWC word-category dominance scores of seven lie detection datasets are used to show that audio statements and lie-based annotations indicate a greater number of strong verbal leakage cue categories. Moreover, we evaluate the validity of state-of-the-art lie detection models with cross- and in-dataset testing. Results show that in both types of testing, models trained on a dataset with more strong verbal leakage cue categories—as opposed to only a greater number of strong cues—yield superior results, suggesting that verbal leakage cues are a key factor for selecting lie detection datasets.

Perturbation CheckLists for Evaluating NLG Evaluation Metrics

Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2021

What happens if you treat ordinal ratings as interval data? Human evaluations in NLP are even more under-powered than you think

Similar lecture

Perturbation CheckLists for Evaluating NLG Evaluation Metrics