We investigate evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation systems where supervised labels, such as task completion, are not available. Recent works in response generation have adopted metrics from machine translation to compare a model's generated response to a single target response. We show that these metrics correlate very weakly with human judgements in the non-technical Twitter domain, and not at all in the technical Ubuntu domain. We provide quantitative and qualitative results highlighting specific weaknesses in existing metrics, and provide recommendations for future development of better automatic evaluation metrics for dialogue systems.
There has been significant previous work that evaluates how well automatic metrics correlate with human judgements in in both machine translation @cite_19 @cite_40 @cite_2 @cite_30 and natural language generation (NLG) @cite_10 @cite_23 @cite_33 @cite_6 . There has also been work criticizing the usefulness of BLEU in particular for machine translation @cite_13 . While many of the criticisms in these works apply to dialogue generation, we note that generating dialogue responses conditioned on the conversational context is in fact a more difficult problem. This is because most of the difficulty in automatically evaluating language generation models lies in the large set of correct answers. Dialogue response generation given solely the context intuitively has a higher diversity (or entropy) than translation given text in a source language, or surface realization given some intermediate form @cite_37 .
@cite_30 @cite_13 @cite_37 @cite_33 @cite_6 @cite_19 @cite_40 @cite_23 @cite_2 @cite_10
2729046720 2328886022 2122514299 1982897610
Automated metrics such as BLEU are widely used in the machine translation literature. They have also been used recently in the dialogue community for evaluating dialogue response generation. However, previous work in dialogue response generation has shown that these metrics do not correlate strongly with human judgment in the non task-oriented dialogue setting. Task-oriented dialogue responses are expressed on narrower domains and exhibit lower diversity. It is thus reasonable to think that these automated metrics would correlate well with human judgment in the task-oriented setting where the generation task consists of translating dialogue acts into a sentence. We conduct an empirical study to confirm whether this is the case. Our findings indicate that these automated metrics have stronger correlation with human judgments in the task-oriented setting compared to what has been observed in the non task-oriented setting. We also observe that these metrics correlate even better for datasets which provide multiple ground truth reference sentences. In addition, we show that some of the currently available corpora for task-oriented language generation can be solved with simple models and advocate for more challenging datasets. We investigate evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation systems where supervised labels, such as task completion, are not available. Recent works in response generation have adopted metrics from machine translation to compare a model's generated response to a single target response. We show that these metrics correlate very weakly with human judgements in the non-technical Twitter domain, and not at all in the technical Ubuntu domain. We provide quantitative and qualitative results highlighting specific weaknesses in existing metrics, and provide recommendations for future development of better automatic evaluation metrics for dialogue systems. Most previous work on trainable language generation has focused on two paradigms: (a) using a generation decisions of an existing generator. Both approaches rely on the existence of a handcrafted generation component, which is likely to limit their scalability to new domains. The first contribution of this article is to present Bagel, a fully data-driven generation method that treats the language generation task as a search for the most likely sequence of semantic concepts and realization phrases, according to Factored Language Models (FLMs). As domain utterances are not readily available for most natural language generation tasks, a large creative effort is required to produce the data necessary to represent human linguistic variation for nontrivial domains. This article is based on the assumption that learning to produce paraphrases can be facilitated by collecting data from a large sample of untrained annotators using crowdsourcing—rather than a few domain experts—by relying on a coarse meaning representation. A second contribution of this article is to use crowdsourced data to show how dialogue naturalness can be improved by learning to vary the output utterances generated for a given semantic input. Two data-driven methods for generating paraphrases in dialogue are presented: (a) by sampling from the n-best list of realizations produced by Bagel's FLM reranker; and (b) by learning a structured perceptron predicting whether candidate realizations are valid paraphrases. We train Bagel on a set of 1,956 utterances produced by 137 annotators, which covers 10 types of dialogue acts and 128 semantic concepts in a tourist information system for Cambridge. An automated evaluation shows that Bagel outperforms utterance class LM baselines on this domain. A human evaluation of 600 resynthesized dialogue extracts shows that Bagel's FLM output produces utterances comparable to a handcrafted baseline, whereas the perceptron classifier performs worse. Interestingly, human judges find the system sampling from the n-best list to be more natural than a system always returning the first-best utterance. The judges are also more willing to interact with the n-best system in the future. These results suggest that capturing the large variation found in human language using data-driven methods is beneficial for dialogue interaction. There is growing interest in using automatically computed corpus-based evaluation metrics to evaluate Natural Language Generation (NLG) systems, because these are often considerably cheaper than the human-based evaluations which have traditionally been used in NLG. We review previous work on NLG evaluation and on validation of automatic metrics in NLP, and then present the results of two studies of how well some metrics which are popular in other areas of NLP (notably BLEU and ROUGE) correlate with human judgments in the domain of computer-generated weather forecasts. Our results suggest that, at least in this domain, metrics may provide a useful measure of language quality, although the evidence for this is not as strong as we would ideally like to see; however, they do not provide a useful measure of content quality. We also discuss a number of caveats which must be kept in mind when interpreting this and other validation studies.