Natural language processing is concerned with the ability of computers to understand natural language texts, which is, arguably, one of the major bottlenecks in the course of chasing the holy grail of general Artificial Intelligence. Given the unprecedented success of deep learning technology, the natural language processing community has been almost entirely in favor of practical applications with state-of-the-art systems emerging and competing for human-parity performance at an ever-increasing pace. For that reason, fair and adequate evaluation and comparison, responsible for ensuring trustworthy, reproducible and unbiased results, have fascinated the scientific community for long, not only in natural language but also in other fields. A popular example is the ISO-9126 evaluation standard for software products, which outlines a wide range of evaluation concerns, such as cost, reliability, scalability, security, and so forth. The European project EAGLES-1996, being the acclaimed extension to ISO-9126, depicted the fundamental principles specifically for evaluating natural language technologies, which underpins succeeding methodologies in the evaluation of natural language.
Natural language processing encompasses an enormous range of applications, each with its own evaluation concerns, criteria and measures. This thesis cannot hope to be comprehensive but particularly addresses the evaluation in natural language generation (NLG), which touches on, arguably, one of the most human-like natural language applications. In this context, research on quantifying day-to-day progress with evaluation metrics lays the foundation of the fast-growing NLG community. However, previous works have failed to address high-quality metrics in multiple scenarios such as evaluating long texts and when human references are not available, and, more prominently, these studies are limited in scope, given the lack of a holistic view sketched for principled NLG evaluation.
In this thesis, we aim for a holistic view of NLG evaluation from three complementary perspectives, driven by the evaluation principles in EAGLES-1996: (i) high-quality evaluation metrics, (ii) rigorous comparison of NLG systems for properly tracking the progress, and (iii) understanding evaluation metrics. To this end, we identify the current state of challenges derived from the inherent characteristics of these perspectives, and then present novel metrics, rigorous comparison approaches, and explainability techniques for metrics to address the identified issues.
We hope that our work on evaluation metrics, system comparison and explainability for metrics inspires more research towards principled NLG evaluation, and contributes to the fair and adequate evaluation and comparison in natural language processing
