Desiderata for evaluation Nancy Green, Kathy McCoy, David McDonald, Cecile Paris, Donia Scott

For any evaluation It’s a scientific enterprise … Hypothesis-driven (appropriate methodology will fall naturally from this) Should position itself wrt –the big picture –known results from related fields (e.g., human communication sciences) …. and should include a place for qualitative evaluation (vs. f- measures) Replicability/rigour is important Clarity of inputs/outputs, methods, materials, resources, constraints, limitations etc. Important to identify the benefits of the outcomes –scientific –commercial –engineering

What we get for free … Easier to publish if you can show that you’re doing (clear) evaluations Will educate reviewers (and each other) on what a good NLG evaluation is Given particular long-term goals, short(er) term steps/subtasks can also be identified, addressed and evaluated

Sharing: (good) Effect on the sociology of NLG Shared anything (e.g., frameworks, resources) –will give students a place to start that isn’t a clean slate –establishes benchmarks (which in turn encourages people to go ‘one step more’ than they otherwise might have) Shared tasks: can generate a buzz and some excitement

Shared tasks: (bad) Effect on the sociology of NLG GALE is an example of the worst case …. If it’s any good it has to have narrow focus, but this will bring limitations on broader progress (e.g., interactive narrative). Marginalizing research areas/groups that don’t play, or other aspects of NLG (psycholinguistics, content-planning, etc.) is a danger to be recognised. Needs to be convincing regarding whether it really address important problems and not just low-hanging fruit –DESIDERATA: Clarity of scope (what it includes/excludes) must be made explicit. Competition is inevitable. –DESIDERATA: we need to ensure that we don’t get swept away with this and lose sight of the big picture.