Neural data-to-text systems lack the control and factual accuracy required to generate useful and insightful summaries of multidimensional data. We propose a solution in the form of data views, where each view describes an entity and its attributes along specific dimensions. A sequence of views can then be used as a high-level schema for document planning, with the neural model handling the complexities of micro-planning and surface realization. We show that our view-based system retains factual accuracy while offering high-level control of output that can be tailored based on user preference or other norms within the domain.

This paper presents an overview of, and the results from, the 2023 Shared Task on Reproducibility of Evaluations in NLP (ReproNLP’23), following on from two previous shared tasks on reproducibility of evaluations in NLG, ReproGen’21 and ReproGen’22. This shared task series forms part of an ongoing research programme designed to develop theory and practice of reproducibility assessment in NLP and machine learning, all against a background of an interest in reproducibility that con- tinues to grow in the two fields. This paper describes the ReproNLP’23 shared task, summarises results from the reproduction studies submitted, and provides comparative analysis of the results.

Human evaluation is widely regarded as the litmus test of quality in NLP. A basic requirementof all evaluations, but in particular where they are used for meta-evaluation, is that they should support the same conclusions if repeated. However, the reproducibility of human evaluations is virtually never queried, let alone formally tested, in NLP which means that their repeatability and the reproducibility of their results is currently an open question. This focused contribution reports our review of human evaluation experiments reported in NLP papers over the past five years which we assessed in terms oftheir ability to be rerun. Overall, we estimatethat just 5% of human evaluations are repeatable in the sense that (i) there are no prohibitivebarriers to repetition, and (ii) sufficient information about experimental design is publicly available for rerunning them. Our estimate goesup to about 20% when author help is sought. We complement this investigation with a survey of results concerning the reproducibilityof human evaluations where those are repeatable in the first place. Here we find worryinglylow degrees of reproducibility, both in terms ofsimilarity of scores and of findings supportedby them. We summarise what insights can begleaned so far regarding how to make humanevaluations in NLP more repeatable and morereproducible.

We report our efforts in identifying a set of previous human evaluations in NLP that would be suitable for a coordinated study examining what makes human evaluations in NLP more/less reproducible. We present our results and findings, which include that just 13% of papers had (i) sufficiently low barriers to reproduction, and (ii) enough obtainable information, to be considered for reproduction, and that all but one of the experiments we selected for reproduction was discovered to have flaws that made the meaningfulness of conducting a reproduction questionable. As a result, we had to change our coordinated study design from a reproduce approach to a standardise-then-reproduce-twice approach. Our overall (negative) finding that the great majority of human evaluations in NLP is not repeatable and/or not reproducible and/or too flawed to justify reproduction, paints a dire picture, but presents an opportunity for a rethink about how to design and report human evaluations in NLP.

Evaluations in machine learning rarely use the latest metrics, datasets, or human evaluation in favor of remaining compatible with prior work. The compatibility, often facilitated through leaderboards, thus leads to outdated but standardized evaluation practices. We pose that the standardization is taking place in the wrong spot. Evaluation infrastructure should enable researchers to use the latest methods and what should be standardized instead is how to incorporate these new evaluation advances. We introduce GEMv2, the new version of the Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics Benchmark which uses a modular infrastructure for dataset, model, and metric developers to benefit from each other’s work. GEMv2 supports 40 documented datasets in 51 languages, ongoing online evaluation for all datasets, and our interactive tools make it easier to add new datasets to the living benchmark.

We investigate the data collected for the Accuracy Evaluation Shared Task as a retrospective reproduction study. The shared task was based upon errors found by human annotation of computer generated summaries of basketball games. Annotation was performed in three separate stages, with texts taken from the same three systems and checked for errors by the same three annotators. We show that the mean count of errors was consistent at the highest level for each experiment, with increased variance when looking at per-system and/or per-error- type breakdowns.

We observe a severe under-reporting of the different kinds of errors that Natural Language Generation systems make. This is a problem, because mistakes are an important indicator of where systems should still be improved. If authors only report overall performance metrics, the research community is left in the dark about the specific weaknesses that are exhibited by ‘state-of-the-art’ research. Next to quantifying the extent of error under-reporting, this position paper provides recommendations for error identification, analysis and reporting.

The Shared Task on Evaluating Accuracy focused on techniques (both manual and automatic) for evaluating the factual accuracy of texts produced by neural NLG systems, in a sports-reporting domain. Four teams submitted evaluation techniques for this task, using very different approaches and techniques. The best-performing submissions did encouragingly well at this difficult task. However, all automatic submissions struggled to detect factual errors which are semantically or pragmatically complex (for example, based on incorrect computation or inference).

It is unfair to expect neural data-to-text to produce high quality output when there are gaps between system input data and information contained in the training text. Thomson et al. (2020) identify and narrow information gaps in Rotowire, a popular data-to-text dataset. In this paper, we describe a study which finds that a state-of-the-art neural data-to-text system produces higher quality output, according to the information extraction (IE) based metrics, when additional input data is carefully selected from this newly available source. It remains to be shown, however, whether IE metrics used in this study correlate well with humans in judging text quality.

Most Natural Language Generation systems need to produce accurate texts. We propose a methodology for high-quality human evaluation of the accuracy of generated texts, which is intended to serve as a gold-standard for accuracy evaluations of data-to-text systems. We use our methodology to evaluate the accuracy of computer generated basketball summaries. We then show how our gold standard evaluation can be used to validate automated metrics.

We propose a shared task on methodologies and algorithms for evaluating the accuracy of generated texts, specifically summaries of basketball games produced from basketball box score and other game data. We welcome submissions based on protocols for human evaluation, automatic metrics, as well as combinations of human evaluations and metrics.

This paper proposes an approach to NLG system design which focuses on generating output text which can be more easily processed by the reader. Ways in which cognitive theory might be combined with existing NLG techniques are discussed and two simple experiments in content ordering are presented.