A robust evaluation metric has a profound impact on the development of text generation systems. A desirable metric compares system output against references based on their semantics rather than surface forms. In this paper we investigate strategies to encode system and reference texts to devise a metric that shows a high correlation with human judgment of text quality. We validate our new metric, namely MoverScore, on a number of text generation tasks including summarization, machine translation, image captioning, and data-to-text generation, where the outputs are produced by a variety of neural and non-neural systems. Our findings suggest that metrics combining contextualized representations with a distance measure perform the best. Such metrics also demonstrate strong generalization capability across tasks. For ease-of-use we make our metrics available as web service. 1

Research on summarization has mainly been driven by empirical approaches, crafting systems to perform well on standard datasets with the notion of information Importance remaining latent. We argue that establishing theoretical models of Importance will advance our understanding of the task and help to further improve summarization systems. To this end, we propose simple but rigorous definitions of several concepts that were previously used only intuitively in summarization: Redundancy, Relevance, and Informativeness. Importance arises as a single quantity naturally unifying these concepts. Additionally, we provide intuitions to interpret the proposed quantities and experiments to demonstrate the potential of the framework to inform and guide subsequent works.

No abstract

Evaluation of cross-lingual encoders is usually performed either via zero-shot cross-lingual transfer in supervised downstream tasks or via unsupervised cross-lingual textual similarity. In this paper, we concern ourselves with reference-free machine translation (MT) evaluation where we directly compare source texts to (sometimes low-quality) system translations, which represents a natural adversarial setup for multilingual encoders. Referencefree evaluation holds the promise of web-scale comparison of MT systems. We systematically investigate a range of metrics based on state-of-the-art cross-lingual semantic representations obtained with pretrained M-BERT and LASER. We find that they perform poorly as semantic encoders for reference-free MT evaluation and identify their two key limitations, namely, (a) a semantic mismatch between representations of mutual translations and, more prominently, (b) the inability to punish "translationese", i.e., low-quality literal translations. We propose two partial remedies:(1) post-hoc re-alignment of the vector spaces and (2) coupling of semantic-similarity based metrics with target-side language modeling. In segment-level MT evaluation, our best metric surpasses reference-based BLEU by 5.7 correlation points. We make our MT evaluation code available. 1

In summarization, automatic evaluation metrics are usually compared based on their ability to correlate with human judgments. Unfortunately, the few existing human judgment datasets have been created as by-products of the manual evaluations performed during the DUC/TAC shared tasks. However, modern systems are typically better than the best systems submitted at the time of these shared tasks. We show that, surprisingly, evaluation metrics which behave similarly on these datasets (average-scoring range) strongly disagree in the higher-scoring range in which current systems now operate. It is problematic because metrics disagree yet we can't decide which one to trust. This is a call for collecting human judgments for high-scoring summaries as this would resolve the debate over which metrics to trust. This would also be greatly beneficial to further improve summarization systems and metrics alike.