GRUEN for Evaluating Linguistic Quality of Generated Text

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02498v1
• Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 05:59:25 GMT
• Title: GRUEN for Evaluating Linguistic Quality of Generated Text
• Authors: Wanzheng Zhu, Suma Bhat
• Abstract summary: We propose GRUEN for evaluating Grammaticality, non-Redundancy, focUs, structure and coherENce of generated text. GRUEN utilizes a BERT-based model and a class of syntactic, semantic, and contextual features to examine the system output.
• Score: 17.234442722611803
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Automatic evaluation metrics are indispensable for evaluating generated text. To date, these metrics have focused almost exclusively on the content selection aspect of the system output, ignoring the linguistic quality aspect altogether. We bridge this gap by proposing GRUEN for evaluating Grammaticality, non-Redundancy, focUs, structure and coherENce of generated text. GRUEN utilizes a BERT-based model and a class of syntactic, semantic, and contextual features to examine the system output. Unlike most existing evaluation metrics which require human references as an input, GRUEN is reference-less and requires only the system output. Besides, it has the advantage of being unsupervised, deterministic, and adaptable to various tasks. Experiments on seven datasets over four language generation tasks show that the proposed metric correlates highly with human judgments.

Related papers

• Evaluation Metrics of Language Generation Models for Synthetic Traffic Generation Tasks [22.629816738693254]
  We show that common NLG metrics, like BLEU, are not suitable for evaluating Synthetic Traffic Generation (STG) We propose and evaluate several metrics designed to compare the generated traffic to the distribution of real user texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-21T11:26:26Z)
• DecompEval: Evaluating Generated Texts as Unsupervised Decomposed Question Answering [95.89707479748161]
  Existing evaluation metrics for natural language generation (NLG) tasks face the challenges on generalization ability and interpretability. We propose a metric called DecompEval that formulates NLG evaluation as an instruction-style question answering task. We decompose our devised instruction-style question about the quality of generated texts into the subquestions that measure the quality of each sentence. The subquestions with their answers generated by PLMs are then recomposed as evidence to obtain the evaluation result.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-13T16:16:51Z)
• MISMATCH: Fine-grained Evaluation of Machine-generated Text with Mismatch Error Types [68.76742370525234]
  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. 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T01:38:53Z)
• INSTRUCTSCORE: Explainable Text Generation Evaluation with Finegrained Feedback [80.57617091714448]
  We present InstructScore, an explainable evaluation metric for text generation. We fine-tune a text evaluation metric based on LLaMA, producing a score for generated text and a human readable diagnostic report.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T17:27:22Z)
• ICE-Score: Instructing Large Language Models to Evaluate Code [7.556444391696562]
  We propose textttICE-Score, a new evaluation metric via instructing large language models for code assessments. Our metric addresses the limitations of existing approaches by achieving superior correlations with functional correctness and human preferences. Our results demonstrate that our metric surpasses state-of-the-art metrics for code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-27T16:38:17Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)
• BEAMetrics: A Benchmark for Language Generation Evaluation Evaluation [16.81712151903078]
  Natural language processing (NLP) systems are increasingly trained to generate open-ended text. Different metrics have different strengths and biases, and reflect human intuitions better on some tasks than others. Here, we describe the Benchmark to Evaluate Automatic Metrics (BEAMetrics) to make research into new metrics itself easier to evaluate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:03:19Z)
• Compression, Transduction, and Creation: A Unified Framework for Evaluating Natural Language Generation [85.32991360774447]
  Natural language generation (NLG) spans a broad range of tasks, each of which serves for specific objectives. We propose a unifying perspective based on the nature of information change in NLG tasks. We develop a family of interpretable metrics that are suitable for evaluating key aspects of different NLG tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-14T01:00:42Z)
• Curious Case of Language Generation Evaluation Metrics: A Cautionary Tale [52.663117551150954]
  A few popular metrics remain as the de facto metrics to evaluate tasks such as image captioning and machine translation. This is partly due to ease of use, and partly because researchers expect to see them and know how to interpret them. In this paper, we urge the community for more careful consideration of how they automatically evaluate their models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-26T13:57:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.