OpenMEVA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Open-ended Story Generation Metrics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.08920v1
• Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 04:45:07 GMT
• Title: OpenMEVA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Open-ended Story Generation Metrics
• Authors: Jian Guan, Zhexin Zhang, Zhuoer Feng, Zitao Liu, Wenbiao Ding, Xiaoxi Mao, Changjie Fan, Minlie Huang
• Abstract summary: We propose OpenMEVA, a benchmark for evaluating open-ended story generation metrics. OpenMEVA provides a comprehensive test suite to assess the capabilities of metrics. We observe that existing metrics have poor correlation with human judgments, fail to recognize discourse-level incoherence, and lack inferential knowledge.
• Score: 53.779709191191685
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Automatic metrics are essential for developing natural language generation (NLG) models, particularly for open-ended language generation tasks such as story generation. However, existing automatic metrics are observed to correlate poorly with human evaluation. The lack of standardized benchmark datasets makes it difficult to fully evaluate the capabilities of a metric and fairly compare different metrics. Therefore, we propose OpenMEVA, a benchmark for evaluating open-ended story generation metrics. OpenMEVA provides a comprehensive test suite to assess the capabilities of metrics, including (a) the correlation with human judgments, (b) the generalization to different model outputs and datasets, (c) the ability to judge story coherence, and (d) the robustness to perturbations. To this end, OpenMEVA includes both manually annotated stories and auto-constructed test examples. We evaluate existing metrics on OpenMEVA and observe that they have poor correlation with human judgments, fail to recognize discourse-level incoherence, and lack inferential knowledge (e.g., causal order between events), the generalization ability and robustness. Our study presents insights for developing NLG models and metrics in further research.

Related papers

• Is Reference Necessary in the Evaluation of NLG Systems? When and Where? [58.52957222172377]
  We show that reference-free metrics exhibit a higher correlation with human judgment and greater sensitivity to deficiencies in language quality. Our study can provide insight into the appropriate application of automatic metrics and the impact of metric choice on evaluation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T10:31:11Z)
• Cobra Effect in Reference-Free Image Captioning Metrics [58.438648377314436]
  A proliferation of reference-free methods, leveraging visual-language pre-trained models (VLMs), has emerged. In this paper, we study if there are any deficiencies in reference-free metrics. We employ GPT-4V as an evaluative tool to assess generated sentences and the result reveals that our approach achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T12:36:23Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• A Study on the Evaluation of Generative Models [19.18642459565609]
  Implicit generative models, which do not return likelihood values, have become prevalent in recent years. In this work, we study the evaluation metrics of generative models by generating a high-quality synthetic dataset. Our study shows that while FID and IS do correlate to several f-divergences, their ranking of close models can vary considerably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-22T09:27:31Z)
• Towards Explainable Evaluation Metrics for Natural Language Generation [36.594817754285984]
  We identify key properties and propose key goals of explainable machine translation evaluation metrics. We conduct own novel experiments, which find that current adversarial NLP techniques are unsuitable for automatically identifying limitations of high-quality black-box evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-21T17:05:54Z)
• 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)
• GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
  We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics. Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation. It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)

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.