Many domains and tasks in natural language generation (NLG) are inherently ‘low-resource’, where training data, tools and linguistic analyses are scarce. This poses a particular challenge to researchers and system developers in the era of machine-learning-driven NLG. In this position paper, we initially present the challenges researchers & developers often encounter when dealing with low-resource settings in NLG. We then argue that it is unsustainable to collect large aligned datasets or build large language models from scratch for every possible domain due to cost, labour, and time constraints, so researching and developing methods and resources for low-resource settings is vital. We then discuss current approaches to low-resource NLG, followed by proposed solutions and promising avenues for future work in NLG for low-resource settings.
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.
Mixed initiative in open-domain dialogue requires a system to pro-actively introduce new topics. The one-turn topic transition task explores how a system connects two topics in a cooperative and coherent manner. The goal of the task is to generate a “bridging” utterance connecting the new topic to the topic of the previous conversation turn. We are especially interested in commonsense explanations of how a new topic relates to what has been mentioned before. We first collect a new dataset of human one-turn topic transitions, which we callOTTers. We then explore different strategies used by humans when asked to complete such a task, and notice that the use of a bridging utterance to connect the two topics is the approach used the most. We finally show how existing state-of-the-art text generation models can be adapted to this task and examine the performance of these baselines on different splits of the OTTers data.
Human assessment remains the most trusted form of evaluation in NLG, but highly diverse approaches and a proliferation of different quality criteria used by researchers make it difficult to compare results and draw conclusions across papers, with adverse implications for meta-evaluation and reproducibility. In this paper, we present (i) our dataset of 165 NLG papers with human evaluations, (ii) the annotation scheme we developed to label the papers for different aspects of evaluations, (iii) quantitative analyses of the annotations, and (iv) a set of recommendations for improving standards in evaluation reporting. We use the annotations as a basis for examining information included in evaluation reports, and levels of consistency in approaches, experimental design and terminology, focusing in particular on the 200+ different terms that have been used for evaluated aspects of quality. We conclude that due to a pervasive lack of clarity in reports and extreme diversity in approaches, human evaluation in NLG presents as extremely confused in 2020, and that the field is in urgent need of standard methods and terminology.
Current standards for designing and reporting human evaluations in NLP mean it is generally unclear which evaluations are comparable and can be expected to yield similar results when applied to the same system outputs. This has serious implications for reproducibility testing and meta-evaluation, in particular given that human evaluation is considered the gold standard against which the trustworthiness of automatic metrics is gauged. %and merging others, as well as deciding which evaluations should be able to reproduce each other’s results. Using examples from NLG, we propose a classification system for evaluations based on disentangling (i) what is being evaluated (which aspect of quality), and (ii) how it is evaluated in specific (a) evaluation modes and (b) experimental designs. We show that this approach provides a basis for determining comparability, hence for comparison of evaluations across papers, meta-evaluation experiments, reproducibility testing.
Neural natural language generation (NNLG) systems are known for their pathological outputs, i.e. generating text which is unrelated to the input specification. In this paper, we show the impact of semantic noise on state-of-the-art NNLG models which implement different semantic control mechanisms. We find that cleaned data can improve semantic correctness by up to 97%, while maintaining fluency. We also find that the most common error is omitting information, rather than hallucination.
Developing conventional natural language generation systems requires extensive attention from human experts in order to craft complex sets of sentence planning rules. We propose a Bayesian nonparametric approach to learn sentence planning rules by inducing synchronous tree substitution grammars for pairs of text plans and morphosyntactically-specified dependency trees. Our system is able to learn rules which can be used to generate novel texts after training on small datasets.
Corpora of referring expressions elicited from human participants in a controlled environment are an important resource for research on automatic referring expression generation. We here present G-TUNA, a new corpus of referring expressions for German. Using the furniture stimuli set developed for the TUNA and D-TUNA corpora, our corpus extends on these corpora by providing data collected in a simulated driving dual-task setting, and additionally provides exact duration annotations for the spoken referring expressions. This corpus will hence allow researchers to analyze the interaction between referring expression length and speech rate, under conditions where the listener is under high vs. low cognitive load.
While previous research on readability has typically focused on document-level measures, recent work in areas such as natural language generation has pointed out the need of sentence-level readability measures. Much of psycholinguistics has focused for many years on processing measures that provide difficulty estimates on a word-by-word basis. However, these psycholinguistic measures have not yet been tested on sentence readability ranking tasks. In this paper, we use four psycholinguistic measures: idea density, surprisal, integration cost, and embedding depth to test whether these features are predictive of readability levels. We find that psycholinguistic features significantly improve performance by up to 3 percentage points over a standard document-level readability metric baseline.
The search space in grammar-based natural language generation tasks can get very large, which is particularly problematic when generating long utterances or paragraphs. Using surface realization with OpenCCG as an example, we show that we can effectively detect partial solutions (edges) which cannot ultimately be part of a complete sentence because of their syntactic category. Formulating the completion of an edge into a sentence as finding a solution path in a large state-transition system, we demonstrate a connection to AI Planning which is concerned with this kind of problem. We design a compilation from OpenCCG into AI Planning allowing the detection of infeasible edges via AI Planning dead-end detection methods (proving the absence of a solution to the compilation). Our experiments show that this can filter out large fractions of infeasible edges in, and thus benefit the performance of, complex realization processes.