Cited by 107Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingSpeech and dialogue systems

Towards a Better Metric for Evaluating Question Generation Systems

Open access
Nema, Preksha, Khapra, Mitesh M.·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

There has always been criticism for using ngram based similarity metrics, such as BLEU, NIST, etc, for evaluating the performance of NLG systems.However, these metrics continue to remain popular and are recently being used for evaluating the performance of systems which automatically generate questions from documents, knowledge graphs, images, etc.Given the rising interest in such automatic question generation (AQG) systems, it is important to objectively examine whether these metrics are suitable for this task.In particular, it is important to verify whether such metrics used for evaluating AQG systems focus on answerability of the generated question by preferring questions which contain all relevant information such as question type (Wh-types), entities, relations, etc.In this work, we show that current automatic evaluation metrics based on n-gram similarity do not always correlate well with human judgments about answerability of a question.To alleviate this problem and as a first step towards better evaluation metrics for AQG, we introduce a scoring function to capture answerability and show that when this scoring function is integrated with existing metrics, they correlate significantly better with human judgments.The scripts and data developed as a part of this work are made publicly available.1

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/d18-1429

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nema, P., & Khapra, M. M.
Affiliations
Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IN)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2018
Pages
3950-3959
OpenAlex
W2888812214
Cited by
106
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12
FWCI
4.19
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
automatic question generation, evaluation metrics, n-gram similarity, BLEU, NIST, answerability, scoring functions, human judgment correlation, natural language generation evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review