In ad-hoc retrieval, evaluation relies heavily on user actions, including implicit feedback. In a conversational setting such signals are usually unavailable due to the nature of the interactions, and, instead, the evaluation often relies on crowdsourced evaluation labels. The role of user feedback in annotators' assessment of turns in a conversational perception has been little studied. We focus on how the evaluation of task-oriented dialogue systems (TDSs), is affected by considering user feedback, explicit or implicit, as provided through the follow-up utterance of a turn being evaluated. We explore and compare two methodologies for assessing TDSs: one includes the user's follow-up utterance and one without. We use both crowdworkers and large language models (LLMs) as annotators to assess system responses across four aspects: relevance, usefulness, interestingness, and explanation quality. Our findings indicate that there is a distinct difference in ratings assigned by both annotator groups in the two setups, indicating user feedback does influence system evaluation. Workers are more susceptible to user feedback on usefulness and interestingness compared to LLMs on interestingness and relevance. User feedback leads to a more personalized assessment of usefulness by workers, aligning closely with the user's explicit feedback. Additionally, in cases of ambiguous or complex user requests, user feedback improves agreement among crowdworkers. These findings emphasize the significance of user feedback in refining system evaluations and suggest the potential for automated feedback integration in future research. We publicly release the annotated data to foster research in this area.
Crowdsourced labels play a crucial role in evaluating task-oriented dialogue systems (TDSs). Obtaining high-quality and consistent ground-truth labels from annotators presents challenges. When evaluating a TDS, annotators must fully comprehend the dialogue before providing judgments. Previous studies suggest using only a portion of the dialogue context in the annotation process. However, the impact of this limitation on label quality remains unexplored. This study investigates the influence of dialogue context on annotation quality, considering the truncated context for relevance and usefulness labeling. We further propose to use large language models (LLMs) to summarize the dialogue context to provide a rich and short description of the dialogue context and study the impact of doing so on the annotator's performance. Reducing context leads to more positive ratings. Conversely, providing the entire dialogue context yields higher-quality relevance ratings but introduces ambiguity in usefulness ratings. Using the first user utterance as context leads to consistent ratings, akin to those obtained using the entire dialogue, with significantly reduced annotation effort. Our findings show how task design, particularly the availability of dialogue context, affects the quality and consistency of crowdsourced evaluation labels.
In mixed-initiative conversational search systems, clarifying questions are used to help users who struggle to express their intentions in a single query. These questions aim to uncover user's information needs and resolve query ambiguities. We hypothesize that in scenarios where multimodal information is pertinent, the clarification process can be improved by using non-textual information. Therefore, we propose to add images to clarifying questions and formulate the novel task of asking multimodal clarifying questions in open-domain, mixed-initiative conversational search systems. To facilitate research into this task, we collect a dataset named Melon that contains over 4k multimodal clarifying questions, enriched with over 14k images. We also propose a multimodal query clarification model named Marto and adopt a prompt-based, generative fine-tuning strategy to perform the training of different stages with different prompts. Several analyses are conducted to understand the importance of multimodal contents during the query clarification phase. Experimental results indicate that the addition of images leads to significant improvements of up to 90% in retrieval performance when selecting the relevant images. Extensive analyses are also performed to show the superiority of Marto compared with discriminative baselines in terms of effectiveness and efficiency.
Despite the progress we have recorded in scaling multilingual machine translation (MT) models and evaluation data to several under-resourced African languages, it is difficult to measure accurately the progress we have made on these languages because evaluation is often performed on n-gram matching metrics like BLEU that often have worse correlation with human judgments. Embedding-based metrics such as COMET correlate better; however, lack of evaluation data with human ratings for under-resourced languages, complexity of annotation guidelines like Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), and limited language coverage of multilingual encoders have hampered their applicability to African languages. In this paper, we address these challenges by creating high-quality human evaluation data with a simplified MQM guideline for error-span annotation and direct assessment (DA) scoring for 13 typologically diverse African languages. Furthermore, we develop AfriCOMET, a COMET evaluation metric for African languages by leveraging DA training data from high-resource languages and African-centric multilingual encoder (AfroXLM-Roberta) to create the state-of-the-art evaluation metric for African languages MT with respect to Spearman-rank correlation with human judgments (+0.406).
African languages have far less in-language content available digitally, making it challenging for question answering systems to satisfy the information needs of users. Cross-lingual open-retrieval question answering (XOR QA) systems -- those that retrieve answer content from other languages while serving people in their native language -- offer a means of filling this gap. To this end, we create AfriQA, the first cross-lingual QA dataset with a focus on African languages. AfriQA includes 12,000+ XOR QA examples across 10 African languages. While previous datasets have focused primarily on languages where cross-lingual QA augments coverage from the target language, AfriQA focuses on languages where cross-lingual answer content is the only high-coverage source of answer content. Because of this, we argue that African languages are one of the most important and realistic use cases for XOR QA. Our experiments demonstrate the poor performance of automatic translation and multilingual retrieval methods. Overall, AfriQA proves challenging for state-of-the-art QA models. We hope that the dataset enables the development of more equitable QA technology.
African languages are severely under-represented in NLP research due to lack of datasets covering several NLP tasks. While there are individual language specific datasets that are being expanded to different tasks, only a handful of NLP tasks (e.g. named entity recognition and machine translation) have standardized benchmark datasets covering several geographical and typologically-diverse African languages. In this paper, we develop MasakhaNEWS -- a new benchmark dataset for news topic classification covering 16 languages widely spoken in Africa. We provide an evaluation of baseline models by training classical machine learning models and fine-tuning several language models. Furthermore, we explore several alternatives to full fine-tuning of language models that are better suited for zero-shot and few-shot learning such as cross-lingual parameter-efficient fine-tuning (like MAD-X), pattern exploiting training (PET), prompting language models (like ChatGPT), and prompt-free sentence transformer fine-tuning (SetFit and Cohere Embedding API). Our evaluation in zero-shot setting shows the potential of prompting ChatGPT for news topic classification in low-resource African languages, achieving an average performance of 70 F1 points without leveraging additional supervision like MAD-X. In few-shot setting, we show that with as little as 10 examples per label, we achieved more than 90\% (i.e. 86.0 F1 points) of the performance of full supervised training (92.6 F1 points) leveraging the PET approach.
Question answering (QA) models have shown compelling results in the task of Machine Reading Comprehension (MRC). Recently these systems have proved to perform better than humans on held-out test sets of datasets e.g. SQuAD, but their robustness is not guaranteed. The QA model's brittleness is exposed when evaluated on adversarial generated examples by a performance drop. In this study, we explore the robustness of MRC models to entity renaming, with entities from low-resource regions such as Africa. We propose EntSwap, a method for test-time perturbations, to create a test set whose entities have been renamed. In particular, we rename entities of type: country, person, nationality, location, organization, and city, to create AfriSQuAD2. Using the perturbed test set, we evaluate the robustness of three popular MRC models. We find that compared to base models, large models perform well comparatively on novel entities. Furthermore, our analysis indicates that entity type person highly challenges the MRC models' performance.
Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 442 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.
$ $Dialogue systems are evaluated depending on their type and purpose. Two categories are often distinguished: (1) task-oriented dialogue systems (TDS), which are typically evaluated on utility, i.e., their ability to complete a specified task, and (2) open domain chatbots, which are evaluated on the user experience, i.e., based on their ability to engage a person. What is the influence of user experience on the user satisfaction rating of TDS as opposed to, or in addition to, utility? We collect data by providing an additional annotation layer for dialogues sampled from the ReDial dataset, a widely used conversational recommendation dataset. Unlike prior work, we annotate the sampled dialogues at both the turn and dialogue level on six dialogue aspects: relevance, interestingness, understanding, task completion, efficiency, and interest arousal. The annotations allow us to study how different dialogue aspects influence user satisfaction. We introduce a comprehensive set of user experience aspects derived from the annotators' open comments that can influence users' overall impression. We find that the concept of satisfaction varies across annotators and dialogues, and show that a relevant turn is significant for some annotators, while for others, an interesting turn is all they need. Our analysis indicates that the proposed user experience aspects provide a fine-grained analysis of user satisfaction that is not captured by a monolithic overall human rating.