Further Meta-Evaluation of Broad-Coverage Surface Realization

By Dominic Espinosa, Rajakrishnan Rajkumar, Michael. White, Shoshana Berleant. 2010

24 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Natural Language Processing

Citations in the corpus

Towards Coherent and Engaging Spoken Dialog Response Generation Using Automatic Conversation Evaluators (2019, background): “While the shortcomings of these metrics are well known for MT (Graham, 2015; Espinosa et al., 2010; Cahill, 2009), the problem is aggravated for dialog generation evaluation because of the much larger output space (Liu et al., 2016).”
How NOT To Evaluate Your Dialogue System: An Empirical Study of Unsupervised Evaluation Metrics for Dialogue Response Generation (2016, background): “, 2015) and natural language generation (NLG) (Stent et al., 2005; Cahill, 2009; Reiter and Belz, 2009; Espinosa et al., 2010).”
Survey of the State of the Art in Natural Language Generation: Core tasks, applications and evaluation (2017, methodology): “For example Farhadi et al. (2010) use Markov random fields to parse images into 〈object,action, scene〉 triples, paired with parsed captions.”
On Evaluating and Comparing Conversational Agents (2018, background): “There is work in MT and Natural Language Generation (NLG) ﬁelds which studies correlation of BLEU with human judgement and highlights some of its shortcomings (Graham, 2015; Espinosa et al., 2010; Cahill, 2009).”
On Evaluating and Comparing Open Domain Dialog Systems (2018, background): “There is work in MT and Natural Language Generation (NLG) fields which studies correlation of BLEU with human judgement and highlights some of its shortcomings (Graham, 2015; Espinosa et al., 2010; Cahill, 2009).”
Contextual Topic Modeling For Dialog Systems (2018, background): “However, over the years, there have been various attempts at deﬁning frameworks on how free-form conversations can be rated [2, 3, 4, 5, 1].”