Many domains and tasks in natural language generation (NLG) are inherently ‘low-resource’, where training data, tools and linguistic analyses are scarce. This poses a particular challenge to researchers and system developers in the era of machine-learning-driven NLG. In this position paper, we initially present the challenges researchers & developers often encounter when dealing with low-resource settings in NLG. We then argue that it is unsustainable to collect large aligned datasets or build large language models from scratch for every possible domain due to cost, labour, and time constraints, so researching and developing methods and resources for low-resource settings is vital. We then discuss current approaches to low-resource NLG, followed by proposed solutions and promising avenues for future work in NLG for low-resource settings.

Previous work has shown that human evaluations in NLP are notoriously under-powered. Here, we argue that there are two common factors which make this problem even worse: NLP studies usually (a) treat ordinal data as interval data and (b) operate under high variance settings while the differences they are hoping to detect are often subtle. We demonstrate through simulation that ordinal mixed effects models are better able to detect small differences between models, especially in high variance settings common in evaluations of generated texts. We release tools for researchers to conduct their own power analysis and test their assumptions. We also make recommendations for improving statistical power.

Human assessment remains the most trusted forrm of evaluation in NLG, but highly diverse approaches and a proliferation of different quality criteria used by researchers make it difficult to compare results and draw conclusions across papers, with adverse implication sfor meta-evaluation and reproducibility. Int his paper, we present (i) our dataset of 165 NLG papers with human evaluations, (ii) the annotation scheme we developed to label the papers for different aspects of evaluations, (iii) quantitative analyses of the annotations, and (iv) a set of recommendations for improving standards in evaluation reporting. We use the annotations as a basis for examining information included in evaluation reprots, and levels of consistency in approaches, experimental design and terminology, focusing in particular on the 200+ different terms that have been used for evaluated aspects of quality. We conclude that due to a pervasive lack of clarity in reports and extreme diversity in approaches, human evaluation in NLG presents as extremely confused in 2020, and that the field is in urgent need of standard methods and terminology.

Current standards for designing and reporting human evaluations in NLP mean it is generally unclear which evaluations are comparable and can be expected to yield similar results when applied to the same system outputs. This has serious implications for reproducibility testing and meta-evaluation, in particular given that human evaluation is considered the gold standard against which the trustworthiness of automatic metrics is gauged. %and merging others, as well as deciding which evaluations should be able to reproduce each other’s results. Using examples from NLG, we propose a classification system for evaluations based on disentangling (i) what is being evaluated (which aspect of quality), and (ii) how it is evaluated in specific (a) evaluation modes and (b) experimental designs. We show that this approach provides a basis for determining comparability, hence for comparison of evaluations across papers, meta-evaluation experiments, reproducibility testing.

Neural natural language generation (NNLG) systems are known for their pathological outputs, i.e. generating text which is unrelated to the input specification. In this paper, we show the impact of semantic noise on state-of-theart NNLG models which implement different semantic control mechanisms. We find that cleaned data can improve semantic correctness by up to 97%, while maintaining fluency. We also find that the most common error is omitting information, rather than hallucination.