Reference-based Metrics Disprove Themselves in Question Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.12242v3
• Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 16:55:31 GMT
• Title: Reference-based Metrics Disprove Themselves in Question Generation
• Authors: Bang Nguyen, Mengxia Yu, Yun Huang, Meng Jiang,
• Abstract summary: We find that using human-written references cannot guarantee the effectiveness of reference-based metrics. A good metric is expected to grade a human-validated question no worse than generated questions. We propose a reference-free metric consisted of multi-dimensional criteria such as naturalness, answerability, and complexity.
• Score: 17.83616985138126
• License:
• Abstract: Reference-based metrics such as BLEU and BERTScore are widely used to evaluate question generation (QG). In this study, on QG benchmarks such as SQuAD and HotpotQA, we find that using human-written references cannot guarantee the effectiveness of the reference-based metrics. Most QG benchmarks have only one reference; we replicate the annotation process and collect another reference. A good metric is expected to grade a human-validated question no worse than generated questions. However, the results of reference-based metrics on our newly collected reference disproved the metrics themselves. We propose a reference-free metric consisted of multi-dimensional criteria such as naturalness, answerability, and complexity, utilizing large language models. These criteria are not constrained to the syntactic or semantic of a single reference question, and the metric does not require a diverse set of references. Experiments reveal that our metric accurately distinguishes between high-quality questions and flawed ones, and achieves state-of-the-art alignment with human judgment.

Related papers

• Mitigating the Impact of Reference Quality on Evaluation of Summarization Systems with Reference-Free Metrics [4.881135687863645]
  We introduce a reference-free metric that correlates well with human evaluated relevance, while being very cheap to compute. We show that this metric can also be used alongside reference-based metrics to improve their robustness in low quality reference settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T11:09:25Z)
• 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)
• Towards Multiple References Era -- Addressing Data Leakage and Limited Reference Diversity in NLG Evaluation [55.92852268168816]
  N-gram matching-based evaluation metrics, such as BLEU and chrF, are widely utilized across a range of natural language generation (NLG) tasks. Recent studies have revealed a weak correlation between these matching-based metrics and human evaluations. We propose to utilize textitmultiple references to enhance the consistency between these metrics and human evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-06T14:49:26Z)
• Evaluation of Question Generation Needs More References [7.876222232341623]
  We propose to paraphrase the reference question for a more robust QG evaluation. Using large language models such as GPT-3, we created semantically and syntactically diverse questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T04:40:56Z)
• Not All Metrics Are Guilty: Improving NLG Evaluation by Diversifying References [123.39034752499076]
  Div-Ref is a method to enhance evaluation benchmarks by enriching the number of references. We conduct experiments to empirically demonstrate that diversifying the expression of reference can significantly enhance the correlation between automatic evaluation and human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T11:53:29Z)
• RQUGE: Reference-Free Metric for Evaluating Question Generation by Answering the Question [29.18544401904503]
  We propose a new metric, RQUGE, based on the answerability of the candidate question given the context. We demonstrate that RQUGE has a higher correlation with human judgment without relying on the reference question.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-02T21:10:09Z)
• Revisiting the Evaluation Metrics of Paraphrase Generation [35.6803390044542]
  Most existing paraphrase generation models use reference-based metrics to evaluate their generated paraphrase. This paper proposes BBScore, a reference-free metric that can reflect the generated paraphrase's quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-17T07:18:54Z)
• REAM$\sharp$: An Enhancement Approach to Reference-based Evaluation Metrics for Open-domain Dialog Generation [63.46331073232526]
  We present an enhancement approach to Reference-based EvAluation Metrics for open-domain dialogue systems. A prediction model is designed to estimate the reliability of the given reference set. We show how its predicted results can be helpful to augment the reference set, and thus improve the reliability of the metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-30T10:04:13Z)
• Towards Question-Answering as an Automatic Metric for Evaluating the Content Quality of a Summary [65.37544133256499]
  We propose a metric to evaluate the content quality of a summary using question-answering (QA) We demonstrate the experimental benefits of QA-based metrics through an analysis of our proposed metric, QAEval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-01T15:33:09Z)
• KPQA: A Metric for Generative Question Answering Using Keyphrase Weights [64.54593491919248]
  KPQA-metric is a new metric for evaluating correctness of generative question answering systems. Our new metric assigns different weights to each token via keyphrase prediction. We show that our proposed metric has a significantly higher correlation with human judgments than existing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-01T03:24:36Z)

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.