亚洲男人的天堂2018av,欧美草比,久久久久久免费视频精选,国色天香在线看免费,久久久久亚洲av成人片仓井空

Recent model-based reference-free metrics for open-domain dialogue evaluation exhibit promising correlations with human judgment. However, they either perform turn-level evaluation or look at a single dialogue quality dimension. One would expect a good evaluation metric to assess multiple quality dimensions at the dialogue level. To this end, we are motivated to propose a multi-dimensional dialogue-level metric, which consists of three sub-metrics with each targeting a specific dimension. The sub-metrics are trained with novel self-supervised objectives and exhibit strong correlations with human judgment for their respective dimensions. Moreover, we explore two approaches to combine the sub-metrics: metric ensemble and multitask learning. Both approaches yield a holistic metric that significantly outperforms individual sub-metrics. Compared to the existing state-of-the-art metric, the combined metrics achieve around 16% relative improvement on average across three high-quality dialogue-level evaluation benchmarks.

While machine translation evaluation metrics based on string overlap (e.g., BLEU) have their limitations, their computations are transparent: the BLEU score assigned to a particular candidate translation can be traced back to the presence or absence of certain words. The operations of newer learned metrics (e.g., BLEURT, COMET), which leverage pretrained language models to achieve higher correlations with human quality judgments than BLEU, are opaque in comparison. In this paper, we shed light on the behavior of these learned metrics by creating DEMETR, a diagnostic dataset with 31K English examples (translated from 10 source languages) for evaluating the sensitivity of MT evaluation metrics to 35 different linguistic perturbations spanning semantic, syntactic, and morphological error categories. All perturbations were carefully designed to form minimal pairs with the actual translation (i.e., differ in only one aspect). We find that learned metrics perform substantially better than string-based metrics on DEMETR. Additionally, learned metrics differ in their sensitivity to various phenomena (e.g., BERTScore is sensitive to untranslated words but relatively insensitive to gender manipulation, while COMET is much more sensitive to word repetition than to aspectual changes). We publicly release DEMETR to spur more informed future development of machine translation evaluation metrics

Despite impressive successes, deep reinforcement learning (RL) systems still fall short of human performance on generalization to new tasks and environments that differ from their training. As a benchmark tailored for studying RL generalization, we introduce Avalon, a set of tasks in which embodied agents in highly diverse procedural 3D worlds must survive by navigating terrain, hunting or gathering food, and avoiding hazards. Avalon is unique among existing RL benchmarks in that the reward function, world dynamics, and action space are the same for every task, with tasks differentiated solely by altering the environment; its 20 tasks, ranging in complexity from eat and throw to hunt and navigate, each create worlds in which the agent must perform specific skills in order to survive. This setup enables investigations of generalization within tasks, between tasks, and to compositional tasks that require combining skills learned from previous tasks. Avalon includes a highly efficient simulator, a library of baselines, and a benchmark with scoring metrics evaluated against hundreds of hours of human performance, all of which are open-source and publicly available. We find that standard RL baselines make progress on most tasks but are still far from human performance, suggesting Avalon is challenging enough to advance the quest for generalizable RL.

A major challenge in the field of Text Generation is evaluation because we lack a sound theory that can be leveraged to extract guidelines for evaluation campaigns. In this work, we propose a first step towards such a theory that incorporates different sources of uncertainty, such as imperfect automated metrics and insufficiently sized test sets. The theory has practical applications, such as determining the number of samples needed to reliably distinguish the performance of a set of Text Generation systems in a given setting. We showcase the application of the theory on the WMT 21 and Spot-The-Bot evaluation data and outline how it can be leveraged to improve the evaluation protocol regarding the reliability, robustness, and significance of the evaluation outcome.

In the past, several works have investigated ways for combining quantitative and qualitative methods in research assessment exercises. Indeed, the Italian National Scientific Qualification (NSQ), i.e. the national assessment exercise which aims at deciding whether a scholar can apply to professorial academic positions as Associate Professor and Full Professor, adopts a quantitative and qualitative evaluation process: it makes use of bibliometrics followed by a peer-review process of candidates' CVs. The NSQ divides academic disciplines into two categories, i.e. citation-based disciplines (CDs) and non-citation-based disciplines (NDs), a division that affects the metrics used for assessing the candidates of that discipline in the first part of the process, which is based on bibliometrics. In this work, we aim at exploring whether citation-based metrics, calculated only considering open bibliographic and citation data, can support the human peer-review of NDs and yield insights on how it is conducted. To understand if and what citation-based (and, possibly, other) metrics provide relevant information, we created a series of machine learning models to replicate the decisions of the NSQ committees. As one of the main outcomes of our study, we noticed that the strength of the citational relationship between the candidate and the commission in charge of assessing his/her CV seems to play a role in the peer-review phase of the NSQ of NDs.

Existing automatic story evaluation methods place a premium on story lexical level coherence, deviating from human preference. We go beyond this limitation by considering a novel \textbf{Story} \textbf{E}valuation method that mimics human preference when judging a story, namely \textbf{StoryER}, which consists of three sub-tasks: \textbf{R}anking, \textbf{R}ating and \textbf{R}easoning. Given either a machine-generated or a human-written story, StoryER requires the machine to output 1) a preference score that corresponds to human preference, 2) specific ratings and their corresponding confidences and 3) comments for various aspects (e.g., opening, character-shaping). To support these tasks, we introduce a well-annotated dataset comprising (i) 100k ranked story pairs; and (ii) a set of 46k ratings and comments on various aspects of the story. We finetune Longformer-Encoder-Decoder (LED) on the collected dataset, with the encoder responsible for preference score and aspect prediction and the decoder for comment generation. Our comprehensive experiments result in a competitive benchmark for each task, showing the high correlation to human preference. In addition, we have witnessed the joint learning of the preference scores, the aspect ratings, and the comments brings gain in each single task. Our dataset and benchmarks are publicly available to advance the research of story evaluation tasks.\footnote{Dataset and pre-trained model demo are available at anonymous website \url{//storytelling-lab.com/eval} and \url{//github.com/sairin1202/StoryER}}

In MT evaluation, pairwise comparisons are conducted to identify the better system. In conducting the comparison, the experimenter must allocate a budget to collect Direct Assessment (DA) judgments. We provide a cost effective way to spend the budget, but show that typical budget sizes often do not allow for solid comparison. Taking the perspective that the basis of solid comparison is in achieving statistical significance, we study the power (rate of achieving significance) on a large collection of pairwise DA comparisons. Due to the nature of statistical estimation, power is low for differentiating less than 1-2 DA points, and to achieve a notable increase in power requires at least 2-3x more samples. Applying variance reduction alone will not yield these gains, so we must face the reality of undetectable differences and spending increases. In this context, we propose interim testing, an "early stopping" collection procedure that yields more power per judgment collected, which adaptively focuses the budget on pairs that are borderline significant. Interim testing can achieve up to a 27% efficiency gain when spending 3x the current budget, or 18% savings at the current evaluation power.

This paper offers a comprehensive review of the research on Natural Language Generation (NLG) over the past two decades, especially in relation to data-to-text generation and text-to-text generation deep learning methods, as well as new applications of NLG technology. This survey aims to (a) give the latest synthesis of deep learning research on the NLG core tasks, as well as the architectures adopted in the field; (b) detail meticulously and comprehensively various NLG tasks and datasets, and draw attention to the challenges in NLG evaluation, focusing on different evaluation methods and their relationships; (c) highlight some future emphasis and relatively recent research issues that arise due to the increasing synergy between NLG and other artificial intelligence areas, such as computer vision, text and computational creativity.

Evaluating the quality of learned representations without relying on a downstream task remains one of the challenges in representation learning. In this work, we present Geometric Component Analysis (GeomCA) algorithm that evaluates representation spaces based on their geometric and topological properties. GeomCA can be applied to representations of any dimension, independently of the model that generated them. We demonstrate its applicability by analyzing representations obtained from a variety of scenarios, such as contrastive learning models, generative models and supervised learning models.

User engagement is a critical metric for evaluating the quality of open-domain dialogue systems. Prior work has focused on conversation-level engagement by using heuristically constructed features such as the number of turns and the total time of the conversation. In this paper, we investigate the possibility and efficacy of estimating utterance-level engagement and define a novel metric, {\em predictive engagement}, for automatic evaluation of open-domain dialogue systems. Our experiments demonstrate that (1) human annotators have high agreement on assessing utterance-level engagement scores; (2) conversation-level engagement scores can be predicted from properly aggregated utterance-level engagement scores. Furthermore, we show that the utterance-level engagement scores can be learned from data. These scores can improve automatic evaluation metrics for open-domain dialogue systems, as shown by correlation with human judgements. This suggests that predictive engagement can be used as a real-time feedback for training better dialogue models.