One useful application of NLP models is to support people in reading complex text from unfamiliar domains (e.g., scientific articles). Simplifying the entire text makes it understandable but sometimes removes important details. On the contrary, helping adult readers understand difficult concepts in context can enhance their vocabulary and knowledge. In a preliminary human study, we first identify that lack of context and unfamiliarity with difficult concepts is a major reason for adult readers’ difficulty with domain-specific text. We then introduce targeted concept simplification, a simplification task for rewriting text to help readers comprehend text containing unfamiliar concepts. We also introduce WikiDomains, a new dataset of 22k definitions from 13 academic domains paired with a difficult concept within each definition. We benchmark the performance of open-source and commercial LLMs and a simple dictionary baseline on this task across human judgments of ease of understanding and meaning preservation. Interestingly, our human judges preferred explanations about the difficult concept more than simplifications of the concept phrase. Further, no single model achieved superior performance across all quality dimensions, and automated metrics also show low correlations with human evaluations of concept simplification (~0.2), opening up rich avenues for research on personalized human reading comprehension support.

We present an overview of the GEM 2024 shared task, which comprised of both data-to-text generation and summarization. New datasets were compiled specifically for the task to reduce data contamination in the large language models, which the participants were likely to use. The paper describes the tasks, the datasets, the participating systems, the evaluation methods, and some preliminary results. The full results will be presented at INLG ‘24.

Text generation metrics that are not robust to dialect variation make it impossible to tell how well systems perform for many groups of users, and can even penalize systems for producing text in lower-resource dialects. In this paper, we introduce a suite of methods to assess whether metrics are dialect robust. These methods show that state-of-the-art metrics are not dialect robust: they often prioritize dialect similarity over semantics, preferring outputs that are semantically incorrect over outputs that match the semantics of the reference but contain dialect differences. As a step towards dialect-robust metrics for text generation, we propose NANO, which introduces regional and language information to the metric’s pretraining. NANO significantly improves dialect robustness while preserving the correlation between automated metrics and human ratings. It also enables a more ambitious approach to evaluation, dialect awareness, in which system outputs are scored by both semantic match to the reference and appropriateness in any specified dialect.

To prevent the costly and inefficient use of resources on low-quality annotations, we want a method for creating a pool of dependable annotators who can effectively complete difficult tasks, such as evaluating automatic summarization. Thus, we investigate the recruitment of high-quality Amazon Mechanical Turk workers via a two-step pipeline. We show that we can successfully filter out subpar workers before they carry out the evaluations and obtain high-agreement annotations with similar constraints on resources. Although our workers demonstrate a strong consensus among themselves and CloudResearch workers, their alignment with expert judgments on a subset of the data is not as expected and needs further training in correctness. This paper still serves as a best practice for the recruitment of qualified annotators in other challenging annotation tasks.

Abstractive summarization has enjoyed renewed interest in recent years, thanks to pre-trained language models and the availability of large-scale datasets. Despite promising results, current models still suffer from generating factually inconsistent summaries, reducing their utility for real-world application. Several recent efforts attempt to address this by devising models that automatically detect factual inconsistencies in machine generated summaries. However, they focus exclusively on English, a language with abundant resources. In this work, we leverage factual consistency evaluation models to improve multilingual summarization. We explore two intuitive approaches to mitigate hallucinations based on the signal provided by a multilingual NLI model, namely data filtering and controlled generation. Experimental results in the 45 languages from the XLSum dataset show gains over strong baselines in both automatic and human evaluation. We release models and human judgements of summaries to foster progress towards more factually consistent multilingual summarization.

Reliable automatic evaluation of summarization systems is challenging due to the multifaceted and subjective nature of the task. This is especially the case for languages other than English, where human evaluations are scarce. In this work, we introduce SEAHORSE, a dataset for multilingual, multifaceted summarization evaluation. SEAHORSE consists of 96K summaries with human ratings along 6 dimensions of text quality: comprehensibility, repetition, grammar, attribution, main ideas, and conciseness, covering 6 languages, 9 systems, and 4 datasets. As a result of its size and scope, SEAHORSE can serve both as a benchmark to evaluate learnt metrics, as well as a large-scale resource for training such metrics. We show that metrics trained with SEAHORSE achieve strong performance on the out-of-domain meta-evaluation benchmarks TRUE (Honovich et al., 2022) and mFACE (Aharoni et al., 2022). We make the SEAHORSE dataset and metrics publicly available for future research on multilingual and multifaceted summarization evaluation.

Most existing stylistic text rewriting methods and evaluation metrics operate on a sentence level, but ignoring the broader context of the text can lead to preferring generic, ambiguous, and incoherent rewrites. In this paper, we investigate integrating the preceding textual context into both the rewriting and evaluation stages of stylistic text rewriting, and introduce a new composite contextual evaluation metric CtxSimFit that combines similarity to the original sentence with contextual cohesiveness. We comparatively evaluate non-contextual and contextual rewrites in formality, toxicity, and sentiment transfer tasks. Our experiments show that humans significantly prefer contextual rewrites as more fitting and natural over non-contextual ones, yet existing sentence-level automatic metrics (e.g., ROUGE, SBERT) correlate poorly with human preferences (𝜌=0–0.3). In contrast, human preferences are much better reflected by both our novel CtxSimFit (𝜌=0.7–0.9) as well as proposed context-infused versions of common metrics (𝜌=0.4–0.7). Overall, our findings highlight the importance of integrating context into the generation and especially the evaluation stages of stylistic text rewriting.

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.

Human evaluations are typically considered the gold standard in natural language generation, but as models’ fluency improves, how well can evaluators detect and judge machine-generated text? We run a study assessing non-experts’ ability to distinguish between human- and machine-authored text (GPT2 and GPT3) in three domains (stories, news articles, and recipes). We find that, without training, evaluators distinguished between GPT3- and human-authored text at random chance level. We explore three approaches for quickly training evaluators to better identify GPT3-authored text (detailed instructions, annotated examples, and paired examples) and find that while evaluators’ accuracy improved up to 55%, it did not significantly improve across the three domains. Given the inconsistent results across text domains and the often contradictory reasons evaluators gave for their judgments, we examine the role untrained human evaluations play in NLG evaluation and provide recommendations to NLG researchers for improving human evaluations of text generated from state-of-the-art models.

Story generation is an open-ended and subjective task, which poses a challenge for evaluating story generation models. We present Choose Your Own Adventure, a collaborative writing setup for pairwise model evaluation. Two models generate suggestions to people as they write a short story; we ask writers to choose one of the two suggestions, and we observe which model’s suggestions they prefer. The setup also allows further analysis based on the revisions people make to the suggestions. We show that these measures, combined with automatic metrics, provide an informative picture of the models’ performance, both in cases where the differences in generation methods are small (nucleus vs. top-k sampling) and large (GPT2 vs. Fusion models).

We propose TuringAdvice, a new challenge task and dataset for language understanding models. Given a written situation that a real person is currently facing, a model must generate helpful advice in natural language. Our evaluation framework tests a fundamental aspect of human language understanding: our ability to use language to resolve open-ended situations by communicating with each other. Empirical results show that today’s models struggle at TuringAdvice, even multibillion parameter models finetuned on 600k in-domain training examples. The best model, T5, writes advice that is at least as helpful as human-written advice in only 14% of cases; a much larger non-finetunable GPT3 model does even worse at 4%. This low performance reveals language understanding errors that are hard to spot outside of a generative setting, showing much room for progress.

Current story writing or story editing systems rely on human judgments of story quality for evaluating performance, often ignoring the subjectivity in ratings. We analyze the effect of author and reader characteristics and story writing setup on the quality of stories in a short storytelling task. To study this effect, we create and release STORIESINTHEWILD, containing 1,630 stories collected on a volunteer-based crowdsourcing platform. Each story is rated by three different readers, and comes paired with the author’s and reader’s age, gender, and personality. Our findings show significant effects of authors’ and readers’ identities, as well as writing setup, on story writing and ratings. Notably, compared to younger readers, readers age 45 and older consider stories significantly less creative and less entertaining. Readers also prefer stories written all at once, rather than in chunks, finding them more coherent and creative. We also observe linguistic differences associated with authors’ demographics (e.g., older authors wrote more vivid and emotional stories). Our findings suggest that reader and writer demographics, as well as writing setup, should be accounted for in story writing evaluations.

For evaluating machine-generated texts, automatic methods hold the promise of avoiding collection of human judgments, which can be expensive and time-consuming. The most common automatic metrics, like BLEU and ROUGE, depend on exact word matching, an inflexible approach for measuring semantic similarity. We introduce methods based on sentence mover’s similarity; our automatic metrics evaluate text in a continuous space using word and sentence embeddings. We find that sentence-based metrics correlate with human judgments significantly better than ROUGE, both on machine-generated summaries (average length of 3.4 sentences) and human-authored essays (average length of 7.5). We also show that sentence mover’s similarity can be used as a reward when learning a generation model via reinforcement learning; we present both automatic and human evaluations of summaries learned in this way, finding that our approach outperforms ROUGE.

Counterfactual reasoning requires predicting how alternative events, contrary to what actually happened, might have resulted in different outcomes. Despite being considered a necessary component of AI-complete systems, few resources have been developed for evaluating counterfactual reasoning in narratives. In this paper, we propose Counterfactual Story Rewriting: given an original story and an intervening counterfactual event, the task is to minimally revise the story to make it compatible with the given counterfactual event. Solving this task will require deep understanding of causal narrative chains and counterfactual invariance, and integration of such story reasoning capabilities into conditional language generation models. We present TIMETRAVEL, a new dataset of 29,849 counterfactual rewritings, each with the original story, a counterfactual event, and human-generated revision of the original story compatible with the counterfactual event. Additionally, we include 81,407 counterfactual “branches” without a rewritten storyline to support future work on semi- or un-supervised approaches to counterfactual story rewriting. Finally, we evaluate the counterfactual rewriting capacities of several competitive baselines based on pretrained language models, and assess whether common overlap and model-based automatic metrics for text generation correlate well with human scores for counterfactual rewriting.

We introduce an approach to neural text generation that explicitly represents entities mentioned in the text. Entity representations are vectors that are updated as the text proceeds; they are designed specifically for narrative text like fiction or news stories. Our experiments demonstrate that modeling entities offers a benefit in two automatic evaluations: mention generation (in which a model chooses which entity to mention next and which words to use in the mention) and selection between a correct next sentence and a distractor from later in the same story. We also conduct a human evaluation on automatically generated text in story contexts; this study supports our emphasis on entities and suggests directions for further research.

We present Sounding Board, a social chatbot that won the 2017 Amazon Alexa Prize. The system architecture consists of several components including spoken language processing, dialogue management, language generation, and content management, with emphasis on user-centric and content-driven design. We also share insights gained from large-scale online logs based on 160,000 conversations with real-world users.