Despite being heralded as the new standard for dialogue evaluation, the closed-source nature of GPT-4 poses challenges for the community. Motivated by the need for lightweight, open source, and multilingual dialogue evaluators, this paper introduces GenResCoh (Generated Responses targeting Coherence). GenResCoh is a novel LLM generated dataset comprising over 130k negative and positive responses and accompanying explanations seeded from XDailyDialog and XPersona covering English, French, German, Italian, and Chinese. Leveraging GenResCoh, we propose ECoh (Evaluation of Coherence), a family of evaluators trained to assess response coherence across multiple languages. Experimental results demonstrate that ECoh achieves multilingual detection capabilities superior to the teacher model (GPT-3.5-Turbo) on GenResCoh, despite being based on a much smaller architecture. Furthermore, the explanations provided by ECoh closely align in terms of quality with those generated by the teacher model.
Coherence evaluation aims to assess the organization and structure of a discourse, which remains challenging even in the era of large language models. Due to the scarcity of annotated data, data augmentation is commonly used for training coherence evaluation models. However, previous augmentations for this task primarily rely on heuristic rules, lacking designing criteria as guidance. In this paper, we take inspiration from linguistic theory of discourse structure, and propose a data augmentation framework named CoUDA. CoUDA breaks down discourse coherence into global and local aspects, and designs augmentation strategies for both aspects, respectively. Especially for local coherence, we propose a novel generative strategy for constructing augmentation samples, which involves post-pretraining a generative model and applying two controlling mechanisms to control the difficulty of generated samples. During inference, CoUDA also jointly evaluates both global and local aspects to comprehensively assess the overall coherence of a discourse. Extensive experiments in coherence evaluation show that, with only 233M parameters, CoUDA achieves state-of-the-art performance in both pointwise scoring and pairwise ranking tasks, even surpassing recent GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 based metrics.
Recent large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in aligning generated text with user intentions across various tasks. When it comes to long-form text generation, there has been a growing interest in generation from a discourse coherence perspective. However, existing lexical or semantic metrics such as BLEU, ROUGE, BertScore cannot effectively capture the discourse coherence. The development of discourse-specific automatic evaluation methods for assessing the output of LLMs warrants greater focus and exploration. In this paper, we present a novel automatic metric designed to quantify the discourse divergence between two long-form articles. Extensive experiments on three datasets from representative domains demonstrate that our metric aligns more closely with human preferences and GPT-4 coherence evaluation, outperforming existing evaluation methods.
Providing natural language explanations for recommendations is particularly useful from the perspective of a non-expert user. Although several methods for providing such explanations have recently been proposed, we argue that an important aspect of explanation quality has been overlooked in their experimental evaluation. Specifically, the coherence between generated text and predicted rating, which is a necessary condition for an explanation to be useful, is not properly captured by currently used evaluation measures. In this paper, we highlight the issue of explanation and prediction coherence by 1) presenting results from a manual verification of explanations generated by one of the state-of-the-art approaches 2) proposing a method of automatic coherence evaluation 3) introducing a new transformer-based method that aims to produce more coherent explanations than the state-of-the-art approaches 4) performing an experimental evaluation which demonstrates that this method significantly improves the explanation coherence without affecting the other aspects of recommendation performance.
Recent advancements in open-domain text generation, driven by the power of large pre-trained language models (LLMs), have demonstrated remarkable performance. However, assessing these models' generation quality remains a challenge. In this paper, we introduce a novel method for evaluating open-domain text generation called Contrastive Distribution Methods (CDM). Leveraging the connection between increasing model parameters and enhanced LLM performance, CDM creates a mapping from the _contrast_ of two probabilistic distributions -- one known to be superior to the other -- to quality measures. We investigate CDM for open-domain text generation evaluation under two paradigms: 1) _Generative_ CDM, which harnesses the contrast of two language models' distributions to generate synthetic examples for training discriminator-based metrics; 2) _Discriminative_ CDM, which directly uses distribution disparities between two language models for evaluation. Our experiments on coherence evaluation for multi-turn dialogue and commonsense evaluation for controllable generation demonstrate CDM's superior correlate with human judgment than existing automatic evaluation metrics, highlighting the strong performance and generalizability of our approach.
Coherent entity-aware multi-image captioning aims to generate coherent captions for neighboring images in a news document. There are coherence relationships among neighboring images because they often describe same entities or events. These relationships are important for entity-aware multi-image captioning, but are neglected in entity-aware single-image captioning. Most existing work focuses on single-image captioning, while multi-image captioning has not been explored before. Hence, this paper proposes a coherent entity-aware multi-image captioning model by making use of coherence relationships. The model consists of a Transformer-based caption generation model and two types of contrastive learning-based coherence mechanisms. The generation model generates the caption by paying attention to the image and the accompanying text. The caption-caption coherence mechanism aims to render entities in the caption of the image be also in captions of neighboring images. The caption-image-text coherence mechanism aims to render entities in the caption of the image be also in the accompanying text. To evaluate coherence between captions, two coherence evaluation metrics are proposed. The new dataset DM800K is constructed that has more images per document than two existing datasets GoodNews and NYT800K, and is more suitable for multi-image captioning. Experiments on three datasets show the proposed captioning model outperforms 7 baselines according to BLUE, Rouge, METEOR, and entity precision and recall scores. Experiments also show that the generated captions are more coherent than that of baselines according to caption entity scores, caption Rouge scores, the two proposed coherence evaluation metrics, and human evaluations.
Decision making theories such as Fuzzy-Trace Theory (FTT) suggest that individuals tend to rely on gist, or bottom-line meaning, in the text when making decisions. In this work, we delineate the process of developing GisPy, an open-source tool in Python for measuring the Gist Inference Score (GIS) in text. Evaluation of GisPy on documents in three benchmarks from the news and scientific text domains demonstrates that scores generated by our tool significantly distinguish low vs. high gist documents. Our tool is publicly available to use at: https://github.com/phosseini/GisPy.
Progress in summarizing long texts is inhibited by the lack of appropriate evaluation frameworks. When a long summary must be produced to appropriately cover the facets of that text, that summary needs to present a coherent narrative to be understandable by a reader, but current automatic and human evaluation methods fail to identify gaps in coherence. In this work, we introduce SNaC, a narrative coherence evaluation framework rooted in fine-grained annotations for long summaries. We develop a taxonomy of coherence errors in generated narrative summaries and collect span-level annotations for 6.6k sentences across 150 book and movie screenplay summaries. Our work provides the first characterization of coherence errors generated by state-of-the-art summarization models and a protocol for eliciting coherence judgments from crowd annotators. Furthermore, we show that the collected annotations allow us to train a strong classifier for automatically localizing coherence errors in generated summaries as well as benchmarking past work in coherence modeling. Finally, our SNaC framework can support future work in long document summarization and coherence evaluation, including improved summarization modeling and post-hoc summary correction.
Automatic evaluation metrics are essential for the rapid development of open-domain dialogue systems as they facilitate hyper-parameter tuning and comparison between models. Although recently proposed trainable conversation-level metrics have shown encouraging results, the quality of the metrics is strongly dependent on the quality of training data. Prior works mainly resort to heuristic text-level manipulations (e.g. utterances shuffling) to bootstrap incoherent conversations (negative examples) from coherent dialogues (positive examples). Such approaches are insufficient to appropriately reflect the incoherence that occurs in interactions between advanced dialogue models and humans. To tackle this problem, we propose DEAM, a Dialogue coherence Evaluation metric that relies on Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) to apply semantic-level Manipulations for incoherent (negative) data generation. AMRs naturally facilitate the injection of various types of incoherence sources, such as coreference inconsistency, irrelevancy, contradictions, and decrease engagement, at the semantic level, thus resulting in more natural incoherent samples. Our experiments show that DEAM achieves higher correlations with human judgments compared to baseline methods on several dialog datasets by significant margins. We also show that DEAM can distinguish between coherent and incoherent dialogues generated by baseline manipulations, whereas those baseline models cannot detect incoherent examples generated by DEAM. Our results demonstrate the potential of AMR-based semantic manipulations for natural negative example generation.
Coherence is an important aspect of text quality and is crucial for ensuring its readability. It is essential desirable for outputs from text generation systems like summarization, question answering, machine translation, question generation, table-to-text, etc. An automated coherence scoring model is also helpful in essay scoring or providing writing feedback. A large body of previous work has leveraged entity-based methods, syntactic patterns, discourse relations, and more recently traditional deep learning architectures for text coherence assessment. Previous work suffers from drawbacks like the inability to handle long-range dependencies, out-of-vocabulary words, or model sequence information. We hypothesize that coherence assessment is a cognitively complex task that requires deeper models and can benefit from other related tasks. Accordingly, in this paper, we propose four different Transformer-based architectures for the task: vanilla Transformer, hierarchical Transformer, multi-task learning-based model, and a model with fact-based input representation. Our experiments with popular benchmark datasets across multiple domains on four different coherence assessment tasks demonstrate that our models achieve state-of-the-art results outperforming existing models by a good margin.
Automatic dialogue coherence evaluation has attracted increasing attention and is crucial for developing promising dialogue systems. However, existing metrics have two major limitations: (a) they are mostly trained in a simplified two-level setting (coherent vs. incoherent), while humans give Likert-type multi-level coherence scores, dubbed as "quantifiable"; (b) their predicted coherence scores cannot align with the actual human rating standards due to the absence of human guidance during training. To address these limitations, we propose Quantifiable Dialogue Coherence Evaluation (QuantiDCE), a novel framework aiming to train a quantifiable dialogue coherence metric that can reflect the actual human rating standards. Specifically, QuantiDCE includes two training stages, Multi-Level Ranking (MLR) pre-training and Knowledge Distillation (KD) fine-tuning. During MLR pre-training, a new MLR loss is proposed for enabling the model to learn the coarse judgement of coherence degrees. Then, during KD fine-tuning, the pretrained model is further finetuned to learn the actual human rating standards with only very few human-annotated data. To advocate the generalizability even with limited fine-tuning data, a novel KD regularization is introduced to retain the knowledge learned at the pre-training stage. Experimental results show that the model trained by QuantiDCE presents stronger correlations with human judgements than the other state-of-the-art metrics.
Coherent discourse is distinguished from a mere collection of utterances by the satisfaction of a diverse set of constraints, for example choice of expression, logical relation between denoted events, and implicit compatibility with world-knowledge. Do neural language models encode such constraints? We design an extendable set of test suites addressing different aspects of discourse and dialogue coherence. Unlike most previous coherence evaluation studies, we address specific linguistic devices beyond sentence order perturbations, allowing for a more fine-grained analysis of what constitutes coherence and what neural models trained on a language modelling objective do encode. Extending the targeted evaluation paradigm for neural language models (Marvin and Linzen, 2018) to phenomena beyond syntax, we show that this paradigm is equally suited to evaluate linguistic qualities that contribute to the notion of coherence.
This paper evaluates the utility of Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) trees and relations in discourse coherence evaluation. We show that incorporating silver-standard RST features can increase accuracy when classifying coherence. We demonstrate this through our tree-recursive neural model, namely RST-Recursive, which takes advantage of the text's RST features produced by a state of the art RST parser. We evaluate our approach on the Grammarly Corpus for Discourse Coherence (GCDC) and show that when ensembled with the current state of the art, we can achieve the new state of the art accuracy on this benchmark. Furthermore, when deployed alone, RST-Recursive achieves competitive accuracy while having 62% fewer parameters.
To date there has been very little work on assessing discourse coherence methods on real-world data. To address this, we present a new corpus of real-world texts (GCDC) as well as the first large-scale evaluation of leading discourse coherence algorithms. We show that neural models, including two that we introduce here (SentAvg and ParSeq), tend to perform best. We analyze these performance differences and discuss patterns we observed in low coherence texts in four domains.