Automatic Construction of Evaluation Suites for Natural Language Generation Datasets

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09069v1
• Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:20:58 GMT
• Title: Automatic Construction of Evaluation Suites for Natural Language Generation Datasets
• Authors: Simon Mille, Kaustubh D. Dhole, Saad Mahamood, Laura Perez-Beltrachini, Varun Gangal, Mihir Kale, Emiel van Miltenburg, Sebastian Gehrmann
• Abstract summary: We develop a framework to generate controlled perturbations and identify subsets in text-to-scalar, text-to-text, or data-to-text settings. We propose an evaluation suite made of 80 challenge sets, demonstrate the kinds of analyses that it enables and shed light onto the limits of current generation models.
• Score: 17.13484629172643
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Machine learning approaches applied to NLP are often evaluated by summarizing their performance in a single number, for example accuracy. Since most test sets are constructed as an i.i.d. sample from the overall data, this approach overly simplifies the complexity of language and encourages overfitting to the head of the data distribution. As such, rare language phenomena or text about underrepresented groups are not equally included in the evaluation. To encourage more in-depth model analyses, researchers have proposed the use of multiple test sets, also called challenge sets, that assess specific capabilities of a model. In this paper, we develop a framework based on this idea which is able to generate controlled perturbations and identify subsets in text-to-scalar, text-to-text, or data-to-text settings. By applying this framework to the GEM generation benchmark, we propose an evaluation suite made of 80 challenge sets, demonstrate the kinds of analyses that it enables and shed light onto the limits of current generation models.

Related papers

• How Hard is this Test Set? NLI Characterization by Exploiting Training Dynamics [49.9329723199239]
  We propose a method for the automated creation of a challenging test set without relying on the manual construction of artificial and unrealistic examples. We categorize the test set of popular NLI datasets into three difficulty levels by leveraging methods that exploit training dynamics. When our characterization method is applied to the training set, models trained with only a fraction of the data achieve comparable performance to those trained on the full dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T13:39:21Z)
• Investigating a Benchmark for Training-set free Evaluation of Linguistic Capabilities in Machine Reading Comprehension [12.09297288867446]
  We examine a framework for evaluating optimised models in training-set free setting on synthetically generated challenge sets. We find that despite the simplicity of the generation method, the data can compete with crowd-sourced datasets with regard to naturalness and lexical diversity. We conduct further experiments and show that state-of-the-art language model-based MRC systems can learn to succeed on the challenge set correctly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T12:23:36Z)
• Automatic Generation of Behavioral Test Cases For Natural Language Processing Using Clustering and Prompting [6.938766764201549]
  This paper introduces an automated approach to develop test cases by exploiting the power of large language models and statistical techniques. We analyze the behavioral test profiles across four different classification algorithms and discuss the limitations and strengths of those models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-31T21:12:21Z)
• Zero-shot LLM-guided Counterfactual Generation for Text [15.254775341371364]
  We propose a structured way to utilize large language models (LLMs) as general purpose counterfactual example generators. We demonstrate the efficacy of LLMs as zero-shot counterfactual generators in evaluating and explaining black-box NLP models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-08T03:57:45Z)
• Exploring Precision and Recall to assess the quality and diversity of LLMs [82.21278402856079]
  We introduce a novel evaluation framework for Large Language Models (LLMs) such as textscLlama-2 and textscMistral. This approach allows for a nuanced assessment of the quality and diversity of generated text without the need for aligned corpora.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T13:53:26Z)
• Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment [84.09815387884753]
  We propose a generative judge with 13B parameters, Auto-J, designed to address these challenges. Our model is trained on user queries and LLM-generated responses under massive real-world scenarios. Experimentally, Auto-J outperforms a series of strong competitors, including both open-source and closed-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T07:27:15Z)
• 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)
• A Revised Generative Evaluation of Visual Dialogue [80.17353102854405]
  We propose a revised evaluation scheme for the VisDial dataset. We measure consensus between answers generated by the model and a set of relevant answers. We release these sets and code for the revised evaluation scheme as DenseVisDial.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-20T13:26:45Z)
• ORB: An Open Reading Benchmark for Comprehensive Evaluation of Machine Reading Comprehension [53.037401638264235]
  We present an evaluation server, ORB, that reports performance on seven diverse reading comprehension datasets. The evaluation server places no restrictions on how models are trained, so it is a suitable test bed for exploring training paradigms and representation learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-29T07:27:23Z)

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.