With the growing interest in large language models, the need for evaluating the quality of machine text compared to reference (typically human-generated) text has become focal attention. Most recent works focus either on task-specific evaluation metrics or study the properties of machine-generated text captured by the existing metrics. In this work, we propose a new evaluation scheme to model human judgments in 7 NLP tasks, based on the fine-grained mismatches between a pair of texts. Inspired by the recent efforts in several NLP tasks for fine-grained evaluation, we introduce a set of 13 mismatch error types such as spatial/geographic errors, entity errors, etc, to guide the model for better prediction of human judgments. We propose a neural framework for evaluating machine texts that uses these mismatch error types as auxiliary tasks and re-purposes the existing single-number evaluation metrics as additional scalar features, in addition to textual features extracted from the machine and reference texts. Our experiments reveal key insights about the existing metrics via the mismatch errors. We show that the mismatch errors between the sentence pairs on the held-out datasets from 7 NLP tasks align well with the human evaluation.

Clinical risk scores enable clinicians to tabulate a set of patient data into simple scores to stratify patients into risk categories. Although risk scores are widely used to inform decision-making at the point-of-care, collecting the information necessary to calculate such scores requires considerable time and effort. Previous studies have focused on specific risk scores and involved manual curation of relevant terms or codes and heuristics for each data element of a risk score. To support more generalizable methods for risk score calculation, we annotate 100 patients in MIMIC-III with elements of CHA2DS2-VASc and PERC scores, and explore using question answering (QA) and off-the-shelf tools. We show that QA models can achieve comparable or better performance for certain risk score elements as compared to heuristic-based methods, and demonstrate the potential for more scalable risk score automation without the need for expert-curated heuristics. Our annotated dataset will be released to the community to encourage efforts in generalizable methods for automating risk scores.

Understanding tables is an important and relevant task that involves understanding table structure as well as being able to compare and contrast information within cells. In this paper, we address this challenge by presenting a new dataset and tasks that addresses this goal in a shared task in SemEval 2020 Task 9: Fact Verification and Evidence Finding for Tabular Data in Scientific Documents (SEM-TAB-FACTS). Our dataset contains 981 manually-generated tables and an auto-generated dataset of 1980 tables providing over 180K statement and over 16M evidence annotations. SEM-TAB-FACTS featured two sub-tasks. In sub-task A, the goal was to determine if a statement is supported, refuted or unknown in relation to a table. In sub-task B, the focus was on identifying the specific cells of a table that provide evidence for the statement. 69 teams signed up to participate in the task with 19 successful submissions to subtask A and 12 successful submissions to subtask B. We present our results and main findings from the competition.

We present emrKBQA, a dataset for answering physician questions from a structured patient record. It consists of questions, logical forms and answers. The questions and logical forms are generated based on real-world physician questions and are slot-filled and answered from patients in the MIMIC-III KB through a semi-automated process. This community-shared release consists of over 940000 question, logical form and answer triplets with 389 types of questions and ~7.5 paraphrases per question type. We perform experiments to validate the quality of the dataset and set benchmarks for question to logical form learning that helps answer questions on this dataset.

Although recent advances in abstractive summarization systems have achieved high scores on standard natural language metrics like ROUGE, their lack of factual consistency remains an open challenge for their use in sensitive real-world settings such as clinical practice. In this work, we propose a novel approach to improve factual correctness of a summarization system by re-ranking the candidate summaries based on a factual vector of the summary. We applied this process during our participation in MEDIQA 2021 Task 3: Radiology Report Summarization, where the task is to generate an impression summary of a radiology report, given findings and background as inputs. In our system, we first used a transformer-based encoder-decoder model to generate top N candidate impression summaries for a report, then trained another transformer-based model to predict a 14-observations-vector of the impression based on the findings and background of the report, and finally, utilized this vector to re-rank the candidate summaries. We also employed a source-specific ensembling technique to accommodate for distinct writing styles from different radiology report sources. Our approach yielded 2nd place in the challenge.