Schroedinger's Threshold: When the AUC doesn't predict Accuracy

The Area Under Curve measure (AUC) seems apt to evaluate and compare diverse models, possibly without calibration. An important example of AUC application is the evaluation and benchmarking of models that predict faithfulness of generated text. But we show that the AUC yields an academic and optimistic notion of accuracy that can misalign with the actual accuracy observed in application, yielding significant changes in benchmark rankings. To paint a more realistic picture of downstream model performance (and prepare a model for actual application), we explore different calibration modes, testing calibration data and method.

On the Role of Summary Content Units in Text Summarization Evaluation

At the heart of the Pyramid evaluation method for text summarization lie human written summary content units (SCUs). These SCUs are concise sentences that decompose a summary into small facts. Such SCUs can be used to judge the quality of a candidate summary, possibly partially automated via natural language inference (NLI) systems. Interestingly, with the aim to fully automate the Pyramid evaluation, Zhang and Bansal (2021) show that SCUs can be approximated by automatically generated semantic role triplets (STUs). However, several questions currently lack answers, in particular: i) Are there other ways of approximating SCUs that can offer advantages? ii) Under which conditions are SCUs (or their approximations) offering the most value? In this work, we examine two novel strategies to approximate SCUs: generating SCU approximations from AMR meaning representations (SMUs) and from large language models (SGUs), respectively. We find that while STUs and SMUs are competitive, the best approximation quality is achieved by SGUs. We also show through a simple sentence-decomposition baseline (SSUs) that SCUs (and their approximations) offer the most value when ranking short summaries, but may not help as much when ranking systems or longer summaries.

The Eval4NLP 2023 Shared Task on Prompting Large Language Models as Explainable Metrics

With an increasing number of parameters and pre-training data, generative large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities to solve tasks with minimal or no task-related examples. Notably, LLMs have been successfully employed as evaluation metrics in text generation tasks. Within this context, we introduce the Eval4NLP 2023 shared task that asks participants to explore prompting and score extraction for machine translation (MT) and summarization evaluation. Specifically, we propose a novel competition setting in which we select a list of allowed LLMs and disallow fine-tuning to ensure a focus on prompting. We present an overview of participants' approaches and evaluate them on a new reference-free test set spanning three language pairs for MT and a summarization dataset. Notably, despite the task's restrictions, the best-performing systems achieve results on par with or even surpassing recent reference-free metrics developed using larger models, including GEMBA and Comet-Kiwi-XXL. Finally, as a separate track, we perform a small-scale human evaluation of the plausibility of explanations given by the LLMs.

Gzip versus bag-of-words for text classification

The effectiveness of compression in text classification ('gzip') has recently garnered lots of attention. In this note we show that `bag-of-words' approaches can achieve similar or better results, and are more efficient.

Gzip versus bag-of-words for text classification with KNN

The effectiveness of compression distance in KNN-based text classification ('gzip') has recently garnered lots of attention. In this note we show that simpler means can also be effective, and compression may not be needed. Indeed, a 'bag-of-words' matching can achieve similar or better results, and is more efficient.

AMR4NLI: Interpretable and robust NLI measures from semantic graphs

The task of natural language inference (NLI) asks whether a given premise (expressed in NL) entails a given NL hypothesis. NLI benchmarks contain human ratings of entailment, but the meaning relationships driving these ratings are not formalized. Can the underlying sentence pair relationships be made more explicit in an interpretable yet robust fashion? We compare semantic structures to represent premise and hypothesis, including sets of contextualized embeddings and semantic graphs (Abstract Meaning Representations), and measure whether the hypothesis is a semantic substructure of the premise, utilizing interpretable metrics. Our evaluation on three English benchmarks finds value in both contextualized embeddings and semantic graphs; moreover, they provide complementary signals, and can be leveraged together in a hybrid model.

With a Little Push, NLI Models can Robustly and Efficiently Predict Faithfulness

Conditional language models still generate unfaithful output that is not supported by their input. These unfaithful generations jeopardize trust in real-world applications such as summarization or human-machine interaction, motivating a need for automatic faithfulness metrics. To implement such metrics, NLI models seem attractive, since they solve a strongly related task that comes with a wealth of prior research and data. But recent research suggests that NLI models require costly additional machinery to perform reliably across datasets, e.g., by running inference on a cartesian product of input and generated sentences, or supporting them with a question-generation/answering step. In this work we show that pure NLI models _can_ outperform more complex metrics when combining task-adaptive data augmentation with robust inference procedures. We propose: (1) Augmenting NLI training data to adapt NL inferences to the specificities of faithfulness prediction in dialogue; (2) Making use of both entailment and contradiction probabilities in NLI, and (3) Using Monte-Carlo dropout during inference. Applied to the TRUE benchmark, which combines faithfulness datasets across diverse domains and tasks, our approach strongly improves a vanilla NLI model and significantly outperforms previous work, while showing favourable computational cost.

Similarity-weighted Construction of Contextualized Commonsense Knowledge Graphs for Knowledge-intense Argumentation Tasks

Arguments often do not make explicit how a conclusion follows from its premises. To compensate for this lack, we enrich arguments with structured background knowledge to support knowledge-intense argumentation tasks. We present a new unsupervised method for constructing Contextualized Commonsense Knowledge Graphs (CCKGs) that selects contextually relevant knowledge from large knowledge graphs (KGs) efficiently and at high quality. Our work goes beyond context-insensitive knowledge extraction heuristics by computing semantic similarity between KG triplets and textual arguments. Using these triplet similarities as weights, we extract contextualized knowledge paths that connect a conclusion to its premise, while maximizing similarity to the argument. We combine multiple paths into a CCKG that we optionally prune to reduce noise and raise precision. Intrinsic evaluation of the quality of our graphs shows that our method is effective for (re)constructing human explanation graphs. Manual evaluations in a large-scale knowledge selection setup confirm high recall and precision of implicit CSK in the CCKGs. Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of CCKGs in a knowledge-insensitive argument quality rating task, outperforming strong baselines and rivaling a GPT-3 based system.

SMATCH++: Standardized and Extended Evaluation of Semantic Graphs

The Smatch metric is a popular method for evaluating graph distances, as is necessary, for instance, to assess the performance of semantic graph parsing systems. However, we observe some issues in the metric that jeopardize meaningful evaluation. E.g., opaque pre-processing choices can affect results, and current graph-alignment solvers do not provide us with upper-bounds. Without upper-bounds, however, fair evaluation is not guaranteed. Furthermore, adaptions of Smatch for extended tasks (e.g., fine-grained semantic similarity) are spread out, and lack a unifying framework. For better inspection, we divide the metric into three modules: pre-processing, alignment, and scoring. Examining each module, we specify its goals and diagnose potential issues, for which we discuss and test mitigation strategies. For pre-processing, we show how to fully conform to annotation guidelines that allow structurally deviating but valid graphs. For safer and enhanced alignment, we show the feasibility of optimal alignment in a standard evaluation setup, and develop a lossless graph compression method that shrinks the search space and significantly increases efficiency. For improved scoring, we propose standardized and extended metric calculation of fine-grained sub-graph meaning aspects. Our code is available at https://github.com/flipz357/smatchpp