Automated metrics for Machine Translation have made significant progress, with the goal of replacing expensive and time-consuming human evaluations. These metrics are typically assessed by their correlation with human judgments, which captures the monotonic relationship between human and metric scores. However, we argue that it is equally important to ensure that metrics treat all systems fairly and consistently. In this paper, we introduce a method to evaluate this aspect.

One of the central skills that language learners need to practice is speaking the language. Currently, students in school do not get enough speaking opportunities and lack conversational practice. Recent advances in speech technology and natural language processing allow for the creation of novel tools to practice their speaking skills. In this work, we tackle the first component of such a pipeline, namely, the automated speech recognition module (ASR), which faces a number of challenges: first, state-of-the-art ASR models are often trained on adult read-aloud data by native speakers and do not transfer well to young language learners' speech. Second, most ASR systems contain a powerful language model, which smooths out errors made by the speakers. To give corrective feedback, which is a crucial part of language learning, the ASR systems in our setting need to preserve the errors made by the language learners. In this work, we build an ASR system that satisfies these requirements: it works on spontaneous speech by young language learners and preserves their errors. For this, we collected a corpus containing around 85 hours of English audio spoken by learners in Switzerland from grades 4 to 6 on different language learning tasks, which we used to train an ASR model. Our experiments show that our model benefits from direct fine-tuning on children's voices and has a much higher error preservation rate than other models.

Generative AI systems have become ubiquitous for all kinds of modalities, which makes the issue of the evaluation of such models more pressing. One popular approach is preference ratings, where the generated outputs of different systems are shown to evaluators who choose their preferences. In recent years the field shifted towards the development of automated (trained) metrics to assess generated outputs, which can be used to create preference ratings automatically. In this work, we investigate the evaluation of the metrics themselves, which currently rely on measuring the correlation to human judgments or computing sign accuracy scores. These measures only assess how well the metric agrees with the human ratings. However, our research shows that this does not tell the whole story. Most metrics exhibit a disagreement with human system assessments which is often skewed in favor of particular text generation systems, exposing a degree of favoritism in automated metrics. This paper introduces a formal definition of favoritism in preference metrics, and derives the Favi-Score, which measures this phenomenon. In particular we show that favoritism is strongly related to errors in final system rankings. Thus, we propose that preference-based metrics ought to be evaluated on both sign accuracy scores and favoritism.

This paper investigates the challenges in building Swiss German speech translation systems, specifically focusing on the impact of dialect diversity and differences between Swiss German and Standard German. Swiss German is a spoken language with no formal writing system, it comprises many diverse dialects and is a low-resource language with only around 5 million speakers. The study is guided by two key research questions: how does the inclusion and exclusion of dialects during the training of speech translation models for Swiss German impact the performance on specific dialects, and how do the differences between Swiss German and Standard German impact the performance of the systems? We show that dialect diversity and linguistic differences pose significant challenges to Swiss German speech translation, which is in line with linguistic hypotheses derived from empirical investigations.

We report our efforts in identifying a set of previous human evaluations in NLP that would be suitable for a coordinated study examining what makes human evaluations in NLP more/less reproducible. We present our results and findings, which include that just 13\% of papers had (i) sufficiently low barriers to reproduction, and (ii) enough obtainable information, to be considered for reproduction, and that all but one of the experiments we selected for reproduction was discovered to have flaws that made the meaningfulness of conducting a reproduction questionable. As a result, we had to change our coordinated study design from a reproduce approach to a standardise-then-reproduce-twice approach. Our overall (negative) finding that the great majority of human evaluations in NLP is not repeatable and/or not reproducible and/or too flawed to justify reproduction, paints a dire picture, but presents an opportunity for a rethink about how to design and report human evaluations in NLP.

A major challenge in the field of Text Generation is evaluation: Human evaluations are cost-intensive, and automated metrics often display considerable disagreement with human judgments. In this paper, we propose a statistical model of Text Generation evaluation that accounts for the error-proneness of automated metrics when used to generate preference rankings between system outputs. We show that existing automated metrics are generally over-confident in assigning significant differences between systems in this setting. However, our model enables an efficient combination of human and automated ratings to remedy the error-proneness of the automated metrics. We show that using this combination, we only require about 50% of the human annotations typically used in evaluations to arrive at robust and statistically significant results while yielding the same evaluation outcome as the pure human evaluation in 95% of cases. We showcase the benefits of approach for three text generation tasks: dialogue systems, machine translation, and text summarization.

We present STT4SG-350 (Speech-to-Text for Swiss German), a corpus of Swiss German speech, annotated with Standard German text at the sentence level. The data is collected using a web app in which the speakers are shown Standard German sentences, which they translate to Swiss German and record. We make the corpus publicly available. It contains 343 hours of speech from all dialect regions and is the largest public speech corpus for Swiss German to date. Application areas include automatic speech recognition (ASR), text-to-speech, dialect identification, and speaker recognition. Dialect information, age group, and gender of the 316 speakers are provided. Genders are equally represented and the corpus includes speakers of all ages. Roughly the same amount of speech is provided per dialect region, which makes the corpus ideally suited for experiments with speech technology for different dialects. We provide training, validation, and test splits of the data. The test set consists of the same spoken sentences for each dialect region and allows a fair evaluation of the quality of speech technologies in different dialects. We train an ASR model on the training set and achieve an average BLEU score of 74.7 on the test set. The model beats the best published BLEU scores on 2 other Swiss German ASR test sets, demonstrating the quality of the corpus.

The lack of time-efficient and reliable evaluation methods hamper the development of conversational dialogue systems (chatbots). Evaluations requiring humans to converse with chatbots are time and cost-intensive, put high cognitive demands on the human judges, and yield low-quality results. In this work, we introduce \emph{Spot The Bot}, a cost-efficient and robust evaluation framework that replaces human-bot conversations with conversations between bots. Human judges then only annotate for each entity in a conversation whether they think it is human or not (assuming there are humans participants in these conversations). These annotations then allow us to rank chatbots regarding their ability to mimic the conversational behavior of humans. Since we expect that all bots are eventually recognized as such, we incorporate a metric that measures which chatbot can uphold human-like behavior the longest, i.e., \emph{Survival Analysis}. This metric has the ability to correlate a bot's performance to certain of its characteristics (e.g., \ fluency or sensibleness), yielding interpretable results. The comparably low cost of our framework allows for frequent evaluations of chatbots during their evaluation cycle. We empirically validate our claims by applying \emph{Spot The Bot} to three domains, evaluating several state-of-the-art chatbots, and drawing comparisons to related work. The framework is released as a ready-to-use tool.

We present "AutoJudge", an automated evaluation method for conversational dialogue systems. The method works by first generating dialogues based on self-talk, i.e. dialogue systems talking to itself. Then, it uses human ratings on these dialogues to train an automated judgement model. Our experiments show that AutoJudge correlates well with the human ratings and can be used to automatically evaluate dialogue systems, even in deployed systems. In a second part, we attempt to apply AutoJudge to improve existing systems. This works well for re-ranking a set of candidate utterances. However, our experiments show that AutoJudge cannot be applied as reward for reinforcement learning, although the metric can distinguish good from bad dialogues. We discuss potential reasons, but state here already that this is still an open question for further research.

We study how language on social media is linked to diseases such as atherosclerotic heart disease (AHD), diabetes and various types of cancer. Our proposed model leverages state-of-the-art sentence embeddings, followed by a regression model and clustering, without the need of additional labelled data. It allows to predict community-level medical outcomes from language, and thereby potentially translate these to the individual level. The method is applicable to a wide range of target variables and allows us to discover known and potentially novel correlations of medical outcomes with life-style aspects and other socioeconomic risk factors.