Automatic Metrics in Natural Language Generation: A Survey of Current Evaluation Practices

Overview

• This paper provides a comprehensive survey of current practices in evaluating natural language generation (NLG) systems using automatic metrics.
• The authors examine the strengths and limitations of popular NLG evaluation metrics, including BLEU, METEOR, ROUGE, and others.
• They also discuss the role of human evaluation and how it compares to automatic metrics.

Plain English Explanation

The paper looks at the different ways researchers measure the performance of AI systems that generate human-like text. These automatic metrics are used to quickly and objectively assess the quality of the text produced by the AI, without having to rely on time-consuming human judgments.

Some of the most common automatic metrics include BLEU, METEOR, and ROUGE. These metrics work by comparing the AI-generated text to high-quality reference text written by humans. The closer the AI's output matches the reference, the higher the metric score.

The paper discusses the pros and cons of these automatic metrics. While they provide a fast and standardized way to evaluate NLG systems, they don't always align with human judgments of text quality. The authors also explore how biases in the automatic metrics can lead to misleading results.

Overall, the paper highlights the importance of carefully selecting and interpreting automatic metrics, and the continued need for human evaluation to fully assess the capabilities of natural language generation systems.

Technical Explanation

The paper begins by reviewing prior surveys on NLG evaluation, noting that automatic metrics have become increasingly prominent in recent years. The authors then provide a comprehensive overview of the most widely used automatic evaluation metrics for NLG:

• BLEU: Measures n-gram overlap between the generated text and reference text.
• METEOR: An extension of BLEU that also considers synonymy and paraphrasing.
• ROUGE: A family of metrics that measure overlap of n-grams, longest common subsequences, and other lexical similarity measures.
• Other metrics: The paper also covers perplexity, novel n-gram metrics, and metrics focused on semantic similarity and coherence.

The authors discuss the strengths and limitations of each metric, highlighting how they can fail to capture important aspects of text quality, such as fluency, relevance, and semantics. They also examine the role of human evaluation and how it compares to automatic metrics, noting key divergences and the need for a balanced approach.

Finally, the paper covers emerging research directions, such as using large language models for evaluation, and calls for greater standardization and transparency in NLG benchmarking and metric selection.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a thorough and well-researched overview of the current state of NLG evaluation practices. The authors do an excellent job of highlighting the strengths and limitations of automatic metrics, and the need to consider human evaluation in conjunction with these metrics.

One potential limitation of the paper is that it does not delve deeply into the specific biases and failure modes of the various automatic metrics. While the authors mention these issues, a more in-depth discussion could have provided greater insights for researchers and practitioners.

Additionally, the paper could have explored the implications of the findings for the broader field of natural language processing, such as the impact of flawed evaluation practices on model development, research priorities, and real-world applications.

Overall, this paper serves as a valuable resource for anyone working in the field of natural language generation, and it underscores the importance of carefully selecting and interpreting evaluation metrics to ensure the reliable and robust development of these important AI systems.

Conclusion

This comprehensive survey of NLG evaluation practices emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that considers both automatic metrics and human judgments. While automatic metrics provide a fast and standardized way to assess text quality, they have significant limitations and can fail to capture important aspects of language generation.

The paper's findings suggest that researchers and practitioners must exercise caution when using and interpreting these metrics, and remain mindful of their biases and failure modes. Ultimately, the authors call for greater standardization and transparency in NLG benchmarking and evaluation, to ensure the reliable and robust development of natural language generation systems.