RANLP, Borovets 27-29 Sept. 2007 Evaluating Algorithms for GRE (Going beyond Toy Domains) Ielka van...
-
Upload
mitchell-harvey -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of RANLP, Borovets 27-29 Sept. 2007 Evaluating Algorithms for GRE (Going beyond Toy Domains) Ielka van...
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Evaluating Algorithms for GRE
(Going beyond Toy Domains)
Ielka van der SluisAlbert Gatt
Kees van Deemter
University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Outline
• GRE: Generation of Referring Expressions
• TUNA project: Corpus and Annotation
• Evaluation of Algorithms – Furniture Domain– People Domain
• [ Evaluation in the real world: STEC ]
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
TUNA project (ended Feb. 2007)
• TUNA: Towards a UNified Algorithm for Generating Referring Expressions.
1. Extend coverage of GRE algorithms (plurals, negation, gradable properties,…)
2. Improve empirical foundations of GRE
• Focus on – Content Determination– “First mention” NPs (no anaphora!)
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
TUNA results
• Elsewhere:– Reference to sets (e.g., Gatt 2006, 2007)– Gradable/vague properties (Van Deemter 2006)– Pointing (Van der Sluis & Krahmer 2007)– Large domains (Paraboni et al. 2007)
• This talk: empirical issues– Testing classic algorithms– Method: compute similarity to human-generated NPs
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Method (overview)• Elicitation experiment
• Leads to transparent corpus of referring expressions:– referent and distractors are known– Domain attributes are known
• Transparent corpora can be used for many purposes
This talk: Compare some classic algorithms– giving each algorithm the same input as subjects– computing how similar algorithm’s output is to subjects’ output– We count semantic content only
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Elicitation Experiment
• Furniture (simple domain)– TYPE, COLOUR, SIZE, ORIENTATION
• People (complex domain)– Nine annotated properties in total
Location:– Vertical location (Y-DIMENSION)– Horizontal location (X-DIMENSION)
the green desk facing backwards
the sofa and the desk which are red
the young man with a white shirtthe man with the funny haircut
the man on the left
the chair in the top right
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Furniture trial
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
People trial
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Corpus setup• Each corpus was carefully balanced, e.g. between
singulars and plurals.
• Between-subjects design:
-Location: Subjects discouraged from using locative expressions.+Location: Subjects not discouraged.
-FaultCritical: Subjects could correct their utterances+FaultCritical: Subjects could not correct their utterances
• After discounting outliers and (self-reported) non-fluent speakers, 45 subjects were left
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
• Experiment design: Furniture (-Location)
• 18 trials: (C=Colour, O=orientation, S-size)– 1 referent: minimal identification uses
{c}, {o}, {s}, {c,o}, {c,s}, or {o,s} [6 trials]– 2 “similar” referents
{c}, {o}, {s}, {c,o}, {c,s}, or {o,s} [6 trials]– 2 “dissimilar referents”
{c}, {o}, {s}, {c,o}, {c,s}, or {o,s} [6 trials]
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Classic GRE Algorithms• Full Brevity (FB; Dale 1989)
– Generation of a minimal description
• Greedy Algorithm (GR; Dale 1989) – Always add property that removes the most
distractors
• Incremental Algorithm (IA; Dale and Reiter 1995)– Add next useful property from an ordered list of
properties. (“Preference Order” = PO)
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Other evaluation studies
• Jordan 2000, Jordan & Walker 2005– More than just identification (Jordan 2000)
• Siddharthan & Copestake 2004– References in linguistic context
• Gupta & Stent 2005– Realisation mixed with Content Determination
• Viethen & Dale 2006– Only Colour and Location
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Other evaluation studies
General limitations:
• Limited numbers of subjects/referents
• Few attempts at balancing the corpus. (E.g., Viethen & Dale 2006 let subjects decide what to refer to.)
• IA: no teasing apart of preference orders
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Extensions to the classics• Plurality: (van Deemter 2002)
– Extend each algorithm to search through disjunctions of increasing length
• Location: (van Deemter 2006)– Locatives treated as gradable: “the leftmost table/person”– E.g., suppose the referent x is located in column 3
=> “x is left of column 4”, “x is left of column 5” …=> “x is right of column 2”, “x is right of column 1”…
• Type:– People tend to use TYPE (Dale & Reiter 1995)– Here: All algorithms added TYPE.
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Evaluation aims
• Hypothesis in Dale & Reiter 1995: – IA resembles human output most
• Our main questions: – Is this true?– How important are parameters (PO) for the IA?
• More generally: – assess ‘quality’ of classic GRE algorithms :– calculate average match between the description
generated by an algorithm and the descriptions produced by people (for the same referent)
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Evaluation metric
• Dice Coefficient:
2 x |Common properties|
|total properties|
• A coefficient result of 1 indicates identical sets. 0 means no common terms
• We also used this to measure agreement between annotators of the corpus
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
(Assumptions behind DICE)
• Deletion of a property is slightly worse than addition of a property
• The discriminatory power of a description does not matter
• All properties are equidistant
See Gatt & Van Deemter 2007, “Content Determination in GRE: evaluating the evaluator” )
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Evaluation (I): Furniture• Which preference orders for the IA?
– Psycholinguistic evidence:
• COLOUR >> {ORIENTATION, SIZE}(Pechmann 89; Eikmeyer & Ahlsen 96; Belke & Meyer 02)
• Y-DIMENSION >> X-DIMENSION(Bryant et al, 1992; Arts 2004)
• Split data: +LOCATION vs –LOCATION This talk: focus on –LOCATION –LOCATION = approx. 800 descriptions
• Compare algorithms to a randomized IA (RAND)
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Furniture: -LOCATION
SignificantSignificant
FB/GR
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Beyond Toy Domains• More on Furniture corpus:
Gatt et al. (ENLG-2007)
• With complex real-world objects:– Many different attributes can be used– Number of PO’s explodes– Few psycholinguistic precedents
• People domain attributes:– { hasBeard, hasGlasses, age, hasTie,
hasSuit, hasSuit, hasHair, hairColour, orientation }– 9 Attributes, so 9! = 362880 possible POs
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
IA: Preference Orders for People Domain
• Little psycholinguistic evidence for choosing between all 362880 possible PO’s
• Focus on the most frequent Attributes: G=hasGlasses, B=hasBeard, H=hasHair, C=haircolour– Assumption: H and B must precede C– This leaves us with eight POs:
{ GBHC, GHBC,HBGC,HBCG, HGBC,BHGC, BHCG, BGHC }
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Preference Orders and frequency
Mean (std) Sum
type 1.39 475
hasGlasses .68 231
hasBeard .66 226
HairColour .61 210
hasHair .46 158
orientation .21 73
age .10 34
hasTie .04 12
hasSuit .01 4
hasShirt .01 3
• For attributes other than {G,C,H,B}, we let corpus frequency determine the order
• E.g, IA-GBHC uses
type, G,B,H,C, age,
hasTie, hasSuit,hasShirt
as its PO
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Results People Domain
IA-BASE
Significant Significant by subjects
GR
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Results People domain
• IA_base performs very badly now
• So much about the best IA’s that start with {B,H,G,C} and end with <age,hasTie,hasSuit,hasShirt>
• Some of these did much worse:– IA_BHCG had DICE=0.6, making it
significantly worse (by subjects) than GR!
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Summary
• People domain gives much lower DICE scores than Furniture domain
• Difference between “good” and “bad” POs was enormous in People domain
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Summary• The “Incremental Algorithm” (IA):
– not an algorithm but a class of algorithms
• The best IA beats all other algorithms, but the worst is very bad ...
• GR performs remarkably well.
• How to choose a suitable PO?– Furniture: few attributes; psycholinguistic precedent
• Still, there is variation.
– People: more attributes; no precedents• Variation even greater!
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Discussion• Suppose you want to build a GRE
algorithm for a new and complex domain, for which no transparent corpus is available.
• Psycholinguistic principles are unlikely to help you much
• If corpus is also not balanced, then frequency doesn’t say much either …
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Other uses of this method: STEC
• Summer 2007: First NLG Shared task Evaluation Challenge (STEC)
• STEC involved GRE only, focussing on Content Determination
• 22 GRE Algorithms were submitted and evaluated (6 teams)
• Reported in UCNLG+MT workshop, Copenhagen, Sept 2007
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Other uses of this corpus: STEC
• Each algorithm was compared with the TUNA corpus (minus 40% training set) – Both Furniture and People domain – DICE measured “humanlikeness”– Singulars only
• Each algorithm was also tested in terms of identification time (by human reader)
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Other uses of this corpus: STEC
• Future STEC:– beyond “first mention”– beyond Content Determination– more hearer-oriented experiments
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
STEC results
1. The more minimal the descriptions generated by these 22 systems were, the worse their DICE scores were
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
2. No relation between humanlikeness and identification time
– Best system in terms of DICE was worst-but-one in terms of identification time
• More research needed on the different criteria for judging NLG output
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Thank you
RANLP, Borovets27-29 Sept. 2007
Annotator agreement
• Semantic markup was applied manually to all descriptions in the corpus.
• 2 annotators were given a stratified random sample
• Comparison used Dice.
mean mode
Furniture 0.89 (A/B)
1 (71.1%)
Annotator A 0.93 (A/us)
1 (74.4%)
Annotator B 0.92 (B/us)
1(73%)
People 0.89 (A/B)
1(70%)
Annotator A 0.84 (A/us)
1(41.1%)
Annotator B .78 (B/us)
1(36.3%)