To understand a sentence like “whereas only 10% of White Americans live at or below the poverty line, 28% of African Americans do” it is important not only to identify individual facts, e.g., poverty rates of distinct demographic groups, but also the higher-order relations between them, e.g., the disparity between them. In this paper, we propose the task of Textual Analogy Parsing (TAP) to model this higher-order meaning. Given a sentence such as the one above, TAP outputs a frame-style meaning representation which explicitly specifies what is shared (e.g., poverty rates) and what is compared (e.g., White Americans vs. African Americans, 10% vs. 28%) between its component facts. Such a meaning representation can enable new applications that rely on discourse understanding such as automated chart generation from quantitative text. We present a new dataset for TAP, baselines, and a model that successfully uses an ILP to enforce the structural constraints of the problem.

For evaluating generation systems, automatic metrics such as BLEU cost nothing to run but have been shown to correlate poorly with human judgment, leading to systematic bias against certain model improvements. On the other hand, averaging human judgments, the unbiased gold standard, is often too expensive. In this paper, we use control variates to combine automatic metrics with human evaluation to obtain an unbiased estimator with lower cost than human evaluation alone. In practice, however, we obtain only a 7-13% cost reduction on evaluating summarization and open-response question answering systems. We then prove that our estimator is optimal: there is no unbiased estimator with lower cost. Our theory further highlights the two fundamental bottlenecks—the automatic metric and the prompt shown to human evaluators—both of which need to be improved to obtain greater cost savings.

Knowledge base population (KBP) systems take in a large document corpus and extract entities and their relations. Thus far, KBP evaluation has relied on judgements on the pooled predictions of existing systems. We show that this evaluation is problematic: when a new system predicts a previously unseen relation, it is penalized even if it is correct. This leads to significant bias against new systems, which counterproductively discourages innovation in the field. Our first contribution is a new importance-sampling based evaluation which corrects for this bias by annotating a new system’s predictions on-demand via crowdsourcing. We show this eliminates bias and reduces variance using data from the 2015 TAC KBP task. Our second contribution is an implementation of our method made publicly available as an online KBP evaluation service. We pilot the service by testing diverse state-of-the-art systems on the TAC KBP 2016 corpus and obtain accurate scores in a cost effective manner.