REVIEW 2 cited by
Toward Human-Like Evaluation for Natural Language Generation with Error Analysis
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The state-of-the-art language model-based automatic metrics, e.g. BARTScore, benefiting from large-scale contextualized pre-training, have been successfully used in a wide range of natural language generation (NLG) tasks, including machine translation, text summarization, and data-to-text. Recent studies show that considering both major errors (e.g. mistranslated tokens) and minor errors (e.g. imperfections in fluency) can produce high-quality human judgments. This inspires us to approach the final goal of the evaluation metrics (human-like evaluations) by automatic error analysis. To this end, we augment BARTScore by incorporating the human-like error analysis strategies, namely BARTScore++, where the final score consists of both the evaluations of major errors and minor errors. Experimental results show that BARTScore++ can consistently improve the performance of vanilla BARTScore and outperform existing top-scoring metrics in 20 out of 25 test settings. We hope our technique can also be extended to other pre-trained model-based metrics. We will release our code and scripts to facilitate the community.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Learning to Substitute Words with Model-based Score Ranking
A BERT model fine-tuned with ranking losses against BARTScore substitutes words to improve that score, outperforming supervised and LLM baselines on BARTScore-based metrics without human labels.
-
A Survey of Automatic Evaluation Methods on Text, Visual and Speech Generations
A unified taxonomy and comparative meta-evaluation of automatic evaluation methods across text, vision, and speech generation, concluding that LLM-based evaluators dominate current practice.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.