BLEU is Not Suitable for the Evaluation of Text Simplification

BLEU is widely considered to be an informative metric for text-to-text generation, including Text Simplification (TS). TS includes both lexical and structural aspects. In this paper we show that BLEU is not suitable for the evaluation of sentence splitting, the major structural simplification operation. We manually compiled a sentence splitting gold standard corpus containing multiple structural paraphrases, and performed a correlation analysis with human judgments. We find low or no correlation between BLEU and the grammaticality and meaning preservation parameters where sentence splitting is involved. Moreover, BLEU often negatively correlates with simplicity, essentially penalizing simpler sentences.Comment: Accepted to EMNLP 2018 (Short papers

Evaluation of Automatic Video Captioning Using Direct Assessment

We present Direct Assessment, a method for manually assessing the quality of automatically-generated captions for video. Evaluating the accuracy of video captions is particularly difficult because for any given video clip there is no definitive ground truth or correct answer against which to measure. Automatic metrics for comparing automatic video captions against a manual caption such as BLEU and METEOR, drawn from techniques used in evaluating machine translation, were used in the TRECVid video captioning task in 2016 but these are shown to have weaknesses. The work presented here brings human assessment into the evaluation by crowdsourcing how well a caption describes a video. We automatically degrade the quality of some sample captions which are assessed manually and from this we are able to rate the quality of the human assessors, a factor we take into account in the evaluation. Using data from the TRECVid video-to-text task in 2016, we show how our direct assessment method is replicable and robust and should scale to where there many caption-generation techniques to be evaluated.Comment: 26 pages, 8 figure

An Investigation of Evaluation Metrics for Automated Medical Note Generation

Recent studies on automatic note generation have shown that doctors can save significant amounts of time when using automatic clinical note generation (Knoll et al., 2022). Summarization models have been used for this task to generate clinical notes as summaries of doctor-patient conversations (Krishna et al., 2021; Cai et al., 2022). However, assessing which model would best serve clinicians in their daily practice is still a challenging task due to the large set of possible correct summaries, and the potential limitations of automatic evaluation metrics. In this paper, we study evaluation methods and metrics for the automatic generation of clinical notes from medical conversations. In particular, we propose new task-specific metrics and we compare them to SOTA evaluation metrics in text summarization and generation, including: (i) knowledge-graph embedding-based metrics, (ii) customized model-based metrics, (iii) domain-adapted/fine-tuned metrics, and (iv) ensemble metrics. To study the correlation between the automatic metrics and manual judgments, we evaluate automatic notes/summaries by comparing the system and reference facts and computing the factual correctness, and the hallucination and omission rates for critical medical facts. This study relied on seven datasets manually annotated by domain experts. Our experiments show that automatic evaluation metrics can have substantially different behaviors on different types of clinical notes datasets. However, the results highlight one stable subset of metrics as the most correlated with human judgments with a relevant aggregation of different evaluation criteria.Comment: Accepted to ACL Findings 202

The Glass Ceiling of Automatic Evaluation in Natural Language Generation

Automatic evaluation metrics capable of replacing human judgments are critical to allowing fast development of new methods. Thus, numerous research efforts have focused on crafting such metrics. In this work, we take a step back and analyze recent progress by comparing the body of existing automatic metrics and human metrics altogether. As metrics are used based on how they rank systems, we compare metrics in the space of system rankings. Our extensive statistical analysis reveals surprising findings: automatic metrics -- old and new -- are much more similar to each other than to humans. Automatic metrics are not complementary and rank systems similarly. Strikingly, human metrics predict each other much better than the combination of all automatic metrics used to predict a human metric. It is surprising because human metrics are often designed to be independent, to capture different aspects of quality, e.g. content fidelity or readability. We provide a discussion of these findings and recommendations for future work in the field of evaluation