Source author record

Juri Opitz

Juri Opitz appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Machine Learning

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works

3topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2022arXiv

A Dynamic, Interpreted CheckList for Meaning-oriented NLG Metric Evaluation -- through the Lens of Semantic Similarity Rating

Evaluating the quality of generated text is difficult, since traditional NLG evaluation metrics, focusing more on surface form than meaning, often fail to assign appropriate scores. This is especially problematic for AMR-to-text evaluation, given the abstract nature of AMR. Our work aims to support the development and improvement of NLG evaluation metrics that focus on meaning, by developing a dynamic CheckList for NLG metrics that is interpreted by being organized around meaning-relevant linguistic phenomena. Each test instance consists of a pair of sentences with their AMR graphs and a human-produced textual semantic similarity or relatedness score. Our CheckList facilitates comparative evaluation of metrics and reveals strengths and weaknesses of novel and traditional metrics. We demonstrate the usefulness of CheckList by designing a new metric GraCo that computes lexical cohesion graphs over AMR concepts. Our analysis suggests that GraCo presents an interesting NLG metric worth future investigation and that meaning-oriented NLG metrics can profit from graph-based metric components using AMR.

preprint2021arXiv

Macro F1 and Macro F1

The 'macro F1' metric is frequently used to evaluate binary, multi-class and multi-label classification problems. Yet, we find that there exist two different formulas to calculate this quantity. In this note, we show that only under rare circumstances the two computations can be considered equivalent. More specifically, one formula well 'rewards' classifiers which produce a skewed error type distribution. In fact, the difference in outcome of the two computations can be as high as 0.5. The two computations may not only diverge in their scalar result but can also lead to different classifier rankings.

preprint2021arXiv

Towards a Decomposable Metric for Explainable Evaluation of Text Generation from AMR

Systems that generate natural language text from abstract meaning representations such as AMR are typically evaluated using automatic surface matching metrics that compare the generated texts to reference texts from which the input meaning representations were constructed. We show that besides well-known issues from which such metrics suffer, an additional problem arises when applying these metrics for AMR-to-text evaluation, since an abstract meaning representation allows for numerous surface realizations. In this work we aim to alleviate these issues by proposing $\mathcal{M}\mathcal{F}_β$, a decomposable metric that builds on two pillars. The first is the principle of meaning preservation $\mathcal{M}$: it measures to what extent a given AMR can be reconstructed from the generated sentence using SOTA AMR parsers and applying (fine-grained) AMR evaluation metrics to measure the distance between the original and the reconstructed AMR. The second pillar builds on a principle of (grammatical) form $\mathcal{F}$ that measures the linguistic quality of the generated text, which we implement using SOTA language models. In two extensive pilot studies we show that fulfillment of both principles offers benefits for AMR-to-text evaluation, including explainability of scores. Since $\mathcal{M}\mathcal{F}_β$ does not necessarily rely on gold AMRs, it may extend to other text generation tasks.

preprint2020arXiv

AMR Similarity Metrics from Principles

Different metrics have been proposed to compare Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) graphs. The canonical Smatch metric (Cai and Knight, 2013) aligns the variables of two graphs and assesses triple matches. The recent SemBleu metric (Song and Gildea, 2019) is based on the machine-translation metric Bleu (Papineni et al., 2002) and increases computational efficiency by ablating the variable-alignment. In this paper, i) we establish criteria that enable researchers to perform a principled assessment of metrics comparing meaning representations like AMR; ii) we undertake a thorough analysis of Smatch and SemBleu where we show that the latter exhibits some undesirable properties. For example, it does not conform to the identity of indiscernibles rule and introduces biases that are hard to control; iii) we propose a novel metric S$^2$match that is more benevolent to only very slight meaning deviations and targets the fulfilment of all established criteria. We assess its suitability and show its advantages over Smatch and SemBleu.