File size: 135,656 Bytes
6fa4bc9
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
{
    "paper_id": "2020",
    "header": {
        "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
        "date_generated": "2023-01-19T07:28:53.659990Z"
    },
    "title": "Twenty Years of Confusion in Human Evaluation: NLG Needs Evaluation Sheets and Standardised Definitions",
    "authors": [
        {
            "first": "David",
            "middle": [
                "M"
            ],
            "last": "Howcroft",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {
                "laboratory": "The Interaction Lab, MACS",
                "institution": "Heriot-Watt University",
                "location": {
                    "settlement": "Edinburgh",
                    "country": "Scotland, UK"
                }
            },
            "email": "d.howcroft@hw.ac.uk"
        },
        {
            "first": "Anya",
            "middle": [],
            "last": "Belz",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {
                "laboratory": "",
                "institution": "University of Brighton",
                "location": {
                    "settlement": "Brighton",
                    "region": "England",
                    "country": "UK"
                }
            },
            "email": ""
        },
        {
            "first": "Miruna",
            "middle": [],
            "last": "Clinciu",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {
                "laboratory": "The Interaction Lab, MACS",
                "institution": "Heriot-Watt University",
                "location": {
                    "settlement": "Edinburgh",
                    "country": "Scotland, UK"
                }
            },
            "email": ""
        },
        {
            "first": "Dimitra",
            "middle": [],
            "last": "Gkatzia",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {
                "laboratory": "",
                "institution": "Edinburgh Napier University",
                "location": {
                    "settlement": "Edinburgh",
                    "country": "Scotland, UK"
                }
            },
            "email": ""
        },
        {
            "first": "Sadid",
            "middle": [
                "A"
            ],
            "last": "Hasan",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {
                "laboratory": "",
                "institution": "CVS Health",
                "location": {
                    "settlement": "Wellesley",
                    "region": "MA",
                    "country": "USA"
                }
            },
            "email": ""
        },
        {
            "first": "Saad",
            "middle": [],
            "last": "Mahamood",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {},
            "email": ""
        },
        {
            "first": "Simon",
            "middle": [],
            "last": "Mille",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {
                "laboratory": "",
                "institution": "Universitat Pompeu Fabra",
                "location": {
                    "settlement": "Barcelona",
                    "country": "Spain"
                }
            },
            "email": ""
        },
        {
            "first": "Emiel",
            "middle": [],
            "last": "Van Miltenburg",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {
                "laboratory": "",
                "institution": "Tilburg University",
                "location": {
                    "settlement": "Tilburg",
                    "country": "Netherlands"
                }
            },
            "email": ""
        },
        {
            "first": "Sashank",
            "middle": [],
            "last": "Santhanam",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {
                "laboratory": "",
                "institution": "University of North Carolina at Charlotte",
                "location": {
                    "settlement": "Charlotte",
                    "region": "NC",
                    "country": "USA"
                }
            },
            "email": ""
        },
        {
            "first": "Verena",
            "middle": [],
            "last": "Rieser",
            "suffix": "",
            "affiliation": {
                "laboratory": "The Interaction Lab, MACS",
                "institution": "Heriot-Watt University",
                "location": {
                    "settlement": "Edinburgh",
                    "country": "Scotland, UK"
                }
            },
            "email": ""
        }
    ],
    "year": "",
    "venue": null,
    "identifiers": {},
    "abstract": "Human assessment remains the most trusted form 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 implications for meta-evaluation and reproducibility. In this 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 reports, 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.",
    "pdf_parse": {
        "paper_id": "2020",
        "_pdf_hash": "",
        "abstract": [
            {
                "text": "Human assessment remains the most trusted form 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 implications for meta-evaluation and reproducibility. In this 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 reports, 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.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Abstract",
                "sec_num": null
            }
        ],
        "body_text": [
            {
                "text": "Evaluating natural language generation (NLG) systems is notoriously complex: the same input can be expressed in a variety of output texts, each valid in its own context, making evaluation with automatic metrics far more challenging than in other NLP contexts (Novikova et al., 2017; Reiter and Belz, 2009) . Human evaluations are commonly viewed as a more reliable way to evaluate NLG systems (Celikyilmaz et al., 2020; Gatt and Krahmer, 2018) , but come with their own issues, such as cost and time involved, the need for domain expertise (Celikyilmaz et al., 2020) , and the fact that the experimental setup has a substantial impact on the reliability of human quality judgements (Novikova et al., 2018; Santhanam and Shaikh, 2019) .",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 259,
                        "end": 282,
                        "text": "(Novikova et al., 2017;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF13"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 283,
                        "end": 305,
                        "text": "Reiter and Belz, 2009)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF17"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 393,
                        "end": 419,
                        "text": "(Celikyilmaz et al., 2020;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF4"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 420,
                        "end": 443,
                        "text": "Gatt and Krahmer, 2018)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF7"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 540,
                        "end": 566,
                        "text": "(Celikyilmaz et al., 2020)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF4"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 682,
                        "end": 705,
                        "text": "(Novikova et al., 2018;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF14"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 706,
                        "end": 733,
                        "text": "Santhanam and Shaikh, 2019)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF19"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": "1"
            },
            {
                "text": "Moreover, there is little consensus about how human evaluations should be designed and reported. Methods employed and details reported vary widely, issues including missing details (e.g. number of evaluators, outputs evaluated, and ratings collected), lack of proper analysis of results obtained (e.g. effect size and statistical significance), and much variation in names and definitions of evaluated aspects of output quality (van der Lee et al., 2019; Amidei et al., 2018) . However, we currently lack a complete picture of the prevailing consensus, or lack thereof, regarding approaches to human evaluation, experimental design and terminology.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 428,
                        "end": 454,
                        "text": "(van der Lee et al., 2019;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF10"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 455,
                        "end": 475,
                        "text": "Amidei et al., 2018)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF0"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": "1"
            },
            {
                "text": "Our goal in this work, therefore, is to investigate the extent of the above issues and provide a clear picture of the human evaluations NLG currently employs, how they are reported, and in what respects they are in need of improvement. To this end, we examined 20 years of NLG papers that reported some form of human evaluation, capturing key information about the systems, the quality criteria employed, and how these criteria were operationalised in specific experimental designs.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": "1"
            },
            {
                "text": "The primary contributions of this paper are (1) an annotation scheme and guidelines for identifying characteristics of human evaluations reported in NLG papers; (2) a dataset containing all 165 INLG/ENLG papers with some form of human evaluation published in 2000-2019, annotated with the scheme, and intended to facilitate future research on this topic; (3) analyses of our dataset and annotations, including analysis of quality criteria used in evaluations, and the similarities and differences between them; and (4) a set of recommendations to help improve clarity in reporting evaluation details.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Introduction",
                "sec_num": "1"
            },
            {
                "text": "We selected papers for inclusion in this study following the PRISMA methodology (Moher et al., 2009) recently introduced to NLP by Reiter (2018) in his structured review of the validity of BLEU.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 80,
                        "end": 100,
                        "text": "(Moher et al., 2009)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF12"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 131,
                        "end": 144,
                        "text": "Reiter (2018)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF16"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Paper Selection",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "As summarised in Table 1 , we began by considering all 578 papers published at the main SIGGEN venue(s): the International Natural Language Generation Conference (INLG) and the European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG), which were merged in 2016.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 17,
                        "end": 24,
                        "text": "Table 1",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF0"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Paper Selection",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "While many papers on NLG are published in other venues, including the *ACL conferences, EMNLP, AAAI, IJCAI, etc., focusing on INLG and ENLG provides a simple selection criterion which at the same time ensures a set of papers representative of what researchers specialising in NLG were doing across this time period. We screened the 578 papers looking for mention of a human evaluation, first by skimming for relevant section headings and then by searching in the PDFs for 'human', 'subject', and 'eval'. This left 217 papers.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Paper Selection",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "During annotation (Section 3), we retained only papers that reported a human evaluation in the following sense: an experiment involving assessment of system outputs in terms of an explicitly or implicitly given quality criterion, either via (1) conscious assessment of outputs in terms of the criterion by evaluators (e.g. (dis)agreement with quality statement, direct and relative assessment, qualitative feedback); or (2) counts and other measurements of outputs and user interactions with them (e.g. user-text and user-system interaction measurements, task performance measurements).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Paper Selection",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "We decided to allow evaluations matching the above conditions even if they did not evaluate system generated texts. This allowed the inclusion of papers which, e.g., assess wizard-of-oz or corpus texts to inform the design of an NLG system. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the 165 papers meeting these conditions across publication years. The general increase of papers with human evaluations since 2012 aligns with the evaluation Stage Source  Count   1  INLG / ENLG papers 2000-2019  578  2  Likely with human evaluations  217  3 Confirmed human evals (full dataset) 165 trends found by Gkatzia and Mahamood (2015) , who also reported an increase in the proportion of papers with intrinsic human evaluations between 2012-2015 compared to 2005-2008. However, only 28.54% of the papers in our sample contained a human evaluation compared to 45.4% reported by Gkatzia and Mahamood (2015) .",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 592,
                        "end": 619,
                        "text": "Gkatzia and Mahamood (2015)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF9"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 862,
                        "end": 889,
                        "text": "Gkatzia and Mahamood (2015)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF9"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 241,
                        "end": 249,
                        "text": "Figure 1",
                        "ref_id": "FIGREF0"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 434,
                        "end": 534,
                        "text": "Stage Source  Count   1  INLG / ENLG papers 2000-2019  578  2  Likely with human evaluations  217  3",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF0"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Paper Selection",
                "sec_num": "2"
            },
            {
                "text": "In order to quantitatively study the evaluations in our dataset, we needed a systematic way of collecting information about different aspects of evaluations. Therefore, we developed an annotation scheme to capture different characteristics of evaluations, allowing us to investigate how human evaluations have been designed and reported in NLG over the past two decades, in particular what conventions, similarities and differences have emerged. Below, we summarise our approach to studying aspects of quality assessed in evaluations (Section 3.1), present the final annotation scheme (Section 3.2), describe how we developed it (Section 3.3), and assessed inter-annotator agreement (IAA) (Section 3.4). 1",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Paper Annotation",
                "sec_num": "3"
            },
            {
                "text": "Researchers use the same term to describe the aspect of quality they are evaluating with sometimes very different meaning. Annotating (and later analysing) only such terms as are used in our papers would have restricted us to reporting occurrences of the terms, without any idea of where the same thing was in fact evaluated. We would not have been able to report even that, say, Readability is the nth most frequently evaluated aspect of quality, because not all papers in which Readability results are reported mean the same thing by it.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Aspects of quality",
                "sec_num": "3.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "We wanted to be able to quantitatively study both usage of terms such as Readability, and the meanings associated with them in different papers. Side-stepping the question of whether there is a single, 'true' concept of say Readability that evaluations could aim to assess, we simply tried to determine, on the basis of all the information provided in a paper, which sets of evaluations assessed aspects of quality similar enough to be considered the same (see Section 3.2.2). This resulted in similarity groups which we assigned normalised names to, yielding a set of common-denominator terms for the distinct aspects of quality that were assessed, regardless of what terms authors used for them.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Aspects of quality",
                "sec_num": "3.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "Below we refer to evaluated aspects of quality as quality criteria and the terms used to refer to different criteria as quality criteria names. Any name and definition capturing an aspect of quality can be a quality criterion. We do not wish to imply that there exists a set of 'true' quality criteria, and leave open in this paper the question of how such quality criteria relate to constructs with similar names researched in other fields such as linguistics and psycholinguistics.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Aspects of quality",
                "sec_num": "3.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "The annotation scheme consists of seven closedclass and nine open-class attributes that capture different aspects of human evaluation methods and fall into three categories: (1) four System attributes which describe evaluated NLG systems, (2) four Quality criterion attributes which describe the aspect(s) of quality assessed in evaluations, and (3) eight Operationalisation attributes which describe how evaluations are implemented. Definitions and examples for all attributes can be found in the annotation guidelines in the Supplementary Material.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Annotation scheme",
                "sec_num": "3.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "The four attributes in this category cover the following properties of systems: language (as per ISO 639-3 (2019)), system input and system output (raw/structured data, deep and shallow linguistic representation, different types of text (sentence, documents etc.)), and task (e.g. data-to-text generation, dialogue turn generation, summarisation).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "System attributes",
                "sec_num": "3.2.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "The most challenging aspect of selecting values for the system attributes was the lack of clarity in many papers about inputs/outputs. Where the information was clearly provided, in some cases it proved difficult to decide which of two adjacent attribute values to select; e.g. for system output, single vs. multiple sentences, and for system input, structured data vs. deep linguistic representation.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "System attributes",
                "sec_num": "3.2.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "The attributes in this category are verbatim criterion name and verbatim criterion definition (both as found in the paper), normalised criterion name (see below), and paraphrased criterion definition (capturing the annotator's best approximation of what was really evaluated in the paper).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Quality criterion attributes",
                "sec_num": "3.2.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "As mentioned above, to make it possible to report both on usage of quality criterion names, and on similarities and differences between what was really evaluated, we devised a set of normalised quality criterion names that would allow us to see how many distinct quality criteria are currently being used, and relate these to results from our other analyses. The normalised criterion names were determined by performing bottom-up clustering and renaming of values selected for the attributes verbatim criterion definition, paraphrased criterion definition, verbatim question/prompt and paraphrased question/prompt (see Section 3.2.3).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Quality criterion attributes",
                "sec_num": "3.2.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "We counted 478 occurrences of (verbatim) quality criterion names in papers, mapping to 204 unique names. The clustering and renaming process above produced 71 criterion names which we consider truly distinct and which represent our set of normalised quality criteria. This means that in our analysis, 71 distinct evaluation criteria have been used in the last 20 years in NLG, not 204.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Quality criterion attributes",
                "sec_num": "3.2.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "Some of the normalised criteria are less specific than others, and can be further specified to yield one of the other criteria, implying hierarchical relationships between some criteria. For example, a criterion might measure the overall Correctness of the Surface Form of a text (less specific), or it might more specifically measure its Grammatical-ity or Spelling Accuracy. Using the classification system for human evaluations proposed by Belz et al. (2020) to provide the top two levels and some branching factors, we developed the hierarchical relationships between quality criteria into a taxonomy to help annotators select values (Appendix E). The set of normalised quality criteria names and definitions is provided in Appendix D.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 443,
                        "end": 461,
                        "text": "Belz et al. (2020)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF2"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Quality criterion attributes",
                "sec_num": "3.2.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "Common issues we encountered in selecting values for the normalised quality criterion attribute were underspecified or unclear quality criterion definitions in papers, missing definitions (279 out of 478), missing prompts/questions for the evaluators (311/478), and missing criterion names (98/478). The more of this is missing in a paper, the more difficult it is to see beyond the information provided by authors to form a view of what is actually being evaluated, hence to choose a value for the normalised criterion name attribute.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Quality criterion attributes",
                "sec_num": "3.2.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "The eight attributes in this category record different aspects of how responses are collected in evaluations: the form of response elicitation (direct, vs. relative quality estimation, (dis)agreement with quality statement, etc.), the verbatim question/prompt used in the evaluation and included in the paper, a paraphrased question/prompt for those cases where the paper does not provide the verbatim question/prompt, the data type of the collected responses (categorical, rank order, count, ordinal, etc.), the type of rating instrument from which response variable values are chosen (numerical rating scale, slider scale, verbal descriptor scale, Likert scale, etc.), the size of rating instrument (number of possible response values), the range of response values and any statistics computed for response values.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Operationalisation attributes",
                "sec_num": "3.2.3"
            },
            {
                "text": "We found that for most papers, determining the type and size of scale or rating instrument is straightforward, but the large majority of papers do not provide details about the instructions, questions or prompts shown to evaluators; this was doubly problematic because we often relied on such information to determine what was being evaluated.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Operationalisation attributes",
                "sec_num": "3.2.3"
            },
            {
                "text": "The annotation scheme was developed in four phases, resulting in four versions of the annotations with two IAA tests (for details of which see Section 3.4), once between the second and third version of the scheme, and once between the third and fourth. From each phase to the next, we tested and subsequently improved the annotation scheme and guidelines. Annotations in all versions were carried out by the first nine authors, in roughly equal proportions.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Annotation scheme development",
                "sec_num": "3.3"
            },
            {
                "text": "In the first phase, most of the 165 papers in our final dataset (Table 1) were annotated and then double-checked by two different annotators using a first version of the annotation scheme that did not have formal guidelines.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 64,
                        "end": 73,
                        "text": "(Table 1)",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF0"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Annotation scheme development",
                "sec_num": "3.3"
            },
            {
                "text": "The double-checking revealed considerable differences between annotators, prompting us to formalise the annotation scheme and create detailed instructions, yielding Version 1.0 of the annotation guidelines. IAA tests on new annotations carried out with these guidelines revealed low agreement among annotators (see Table 2 , 1 st IAA test), in particular for some of the attributes we were most interested in, including system task, type of rating instrument, and normalised quality criterion.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 315,
                        "end": 322,
                        "text": "Table 2",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF2"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Annotation scheme development",
                "sec_num": "3.3"
            },
            {
                "text": "We therefore revised the annotation scheme once more, reducing the number of free-text attributes, and introducing automated consistency checking and attribute value suggestions. Using the resulting V2.0 scheme and guidelines, we re-annotated 80 of the papers, this time pairing up annotators for the purpose of agreeing consensus annotations. We computed, and Table 2 reports, three sets of IAA scores on the V2.0 annotations: for all nine annotators separately ('9 solo'), for the 4 consensus annotations ('4 duo'), and for the 5 annotators whose solo annotations agreed most with everyone else's, shown in the '5 best' column. There was an overall improvement in agreement (substantial in the case of some attributes), but we decided to carry out one final set of improvements to definitions and instructions in the annotation guidelines (with minimal changes to attribute names and values), yielding version 2.1 which was then used for the final annotation of all 165 papers in our dataset, on which all analyses in this paper are based.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 361,
                        "end": 368,
                        "text": "Table 2",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF2"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Annotation scheme development",
                "sec_num": "3.3"
            },
            {
                "text": "Papers for IAA tests: For each IAA test we manually selected a different arbitrary set of 10 NLG papers with human evaluations from ACL 2020.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Inter-Annotator Agreement",
                "sec_num": "3.4"
            },
            {
                "text": "Preprocessing: We cleaned up attribute values selected by annotators by normalising spelling, punctuation, and capitalisation. For the first annotation round which allowed empty cells, we replaced those with 'blank.' We also removed papers not meeting the conditions from Section 2.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Inter-Annotator Agreement",
                "sec_num": "3.4"
            },
            {
                "text": "Calculating agreement: The data resulting from annotation was a 10 (papers) \u00d7 n (quality criteria identified by annotator in paper) \u00d7 16 (attribute value pairs) data frame, for each of the annotators. The task for IAA assessment was to measure the agreement across multiple data frames (one for each annotator) allowing for different numbers of criteria being identified by different authors.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Inter-Annotator Agreement",
                "sec_num": "3.4"
            },
            {
                "text": "We did this by calculating Krippendorff's alpha using Jaccard for the distance measure (recommended by Artstein and Poesio 2008) . Scores for the seven closed-class attributes are shown in Table 2 for each of the two IAA tests (column headings as explained in the preceding section).",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 103,
                        "end": 128,
                        "text": "Artstein and Poesio 2008)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF1"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 189,
                        "end": 196,
                        "text": "Table 2",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF2"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Inter-Annotator Agreement",
                "sec_num": "3.4"
            },
            {
                "text": "The consensus annotations ('duo') required pairs of annotators to reach agreement about selected attribute values. This reduced disagreement and improved consistency with the guidelines, the time it took was prohibitive.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Inter-Annotator Agreement",
                "sec_num": "3.4"
            },
            {
                "text": "For the attributes task, data type, and type of rating instrument (shortened to 'instrument' in the table), we consider the '5 best' IAA to be very good (0 indicating chance-level agreement). For system input and output, IAA is still good, with the main source of disagreement the lack of clarity about text size/type in textual inputs/outputs. Replacing the different text size/type values with a single 'text' value improves IAA to 0.41 and 1.00 for inputs and outputs, respectively. The remaining issues for inputs are to do with multiple inputs and distinguishing structured data from deep linguistic representations, which prompted us to merge the two data input types.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Inter-Annotator Agreement",
                "sec_num": "3.4"
            },
            {
                "text": "Low agreement for normalised quality criteria is in part due to the lack of clear information about what aspect of quality is being assessed in papers, and the difficulty of distinguishing quality criteria from evaluation modes (see previous section). But cases where annotators mapped a single criterion name in the paper to multiple normalised criterion names were also a big factor because this substantially raises the bar for agreement.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Inter-Annotator Agreement",
                "sec_num": "3.4"
            },
            {
                "text": "In this section, we present results from analyses performed on the annotations of the 165 papers in our dataset. The dataset and code for analysis are available in the project repository.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Analysis and Results",
                "sec_num": "4"
            },
            {
                "text": "The 165 papers in the dataset correspond to 478 individual evaluations assessing single quality criteria, i.e. 2.8 per paper. For the quality criterion attributes (Section 3.2.2) and the operationalisation attributes (Section 3.2.3) it makes most sense to compute occurrence counts on the 478 individual evaluations, even if that slightly inflates counts in some cases. For example, if multiple criteria are evaluated in the same experiment, should we really count multiple occurrences for every operationalisation attribute? But the alternatives are to either count per paper, leaving the question of what to do about multiple experiments in the same paper, or to count per experiment, leaving the problem of variation within the same experiment and also that it is not always clear whether separate experiments were carried out. For these reasons we opted to compute statistics at the individual-evaluation level for the quality-criterion and operationalisation attributes.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Analysis and Results",
                "sec_num": "4"
            },
            {
                "text": "For the system attributes (Section 3.2.1), we report paper-level statistics. We do sometimes find more than one system type (with different language, input, output or task) being evaluated in a paper, but for those cases we add all attribute values found for the paper. Below we first report paper-level statistics for the system attributes (Section 4.1), followed by evaluation-level statistics for quality-criterion and operationalisation attributes (Section 4.2).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Analysis and Results",
                "sec_num": "4"
            },
            {
                "text": "Unsurprisingly, our analysis shows that the most frequent system language in our dataset is English, accounting for 82.14% of papers pre-2010, and 75.39% post-2010. Appendix A provides a detailed overview of results for this attribute.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Paper-level statistics",
                "sec_num": "4.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "In terms of the system task attribute, our analysis reveals that before 2010, data-to-text generation and dialogue turn generation were the most common tasks, whereas post-2010 the most common tasks are data-to-text generation, summarisation and dialogue turn generation. The biggest increases are for question generation (0 pre-2010, 9 post-2010), end-to-end generation (1 increasing to 8), and summarisation (1 going up to 11). 2 For the system output attribute, we found that a big majority of systems output single or multiple sentences. Appendix B and C show task and output frequencies in more detail. Table 3 provides an overview of the most frequent values selected for the form of response elicitation attribute. We found that direct quality estimation where outputs are scored directly one at a time, was most common (207 times), followed by relative quality estimation where multiple outputs are ranked (72 times). 3 To select values for this criterion, we relied on a combination of descriptions of the general experimental design, prompts/questions and instructions given to evaluators. We found that instructions to evaluators were almost never provided, example prompts/questions rarely, and even details of rating scales etc. were often missing.",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 926,
                        "end": 927,
                        "text": "3",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 608,
                        "end": 615,
                        "text": "Table 3",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF4"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Paper-level statistics",
                "sec_num": "4.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "What was usually clear was the type of scale or other rating instrument and its size and labels. From this, values for other operationalisation attributes such as form of response elicitation, data type of collected responses and range of response values could usually be deduced, but as can be seen Figure 2 : How many papers explicitly name and define all, some, or none of the quality criteria they evaluate.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 300,
                        "end": 308,
                        "text": "Figure 2",
                        "ref_id": null
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Operationalisation attributes",
                "sec_num": "4.2.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "from Table 3 , for 15 individual evaluations (5 papers) even the response elicitation methods were unclear.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 5,
                        "end": 12,
                        "text": "Table 3",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF4"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Operationalisation attributes",
                "sec_num": "4.2.1"
            },
            {
                "text": "In this section, our aim is to look at the criterion names and definitions as given in papers, and how they mapped to the normalised criterion names. As shown in Figure 2 at the paper level, not all papers name their quality criteria and worryingly, just over half give no definitions for any of their quality criteria. As noted in Section 3, where explicit criterion names and/or definitions were missing in papers, we used the remaining information provided in the paper to determine which aspect of quality was evaluated, and mapped this to our set of normalised quality criteria. Table 4 shows how often each normalised criterion occurs in our annotations of the 478 individual evaluations in the dataset. We can see that Usefulness for task/information need, Grammaticality, and Quality of outputs are the most frequently occurring normalised quality criterion names. Fluency which is one of the most frequent criterion names found in papers, ranks only (joint) seventh. Table 5 shows 10 example criterion names as used in papers, and how we mapped them to our normalised criterion names. For example, Fluency was mapped to 15 different (sets of) normalised names (reflecting what was actually evaluated), including many cases where multiple normalised criterion names were selected (indicated by the prefix 'multiple (n)').",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 162,
                        "end": 170,
                        "text": "Figure 2",
                        "ref_id": null
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 584,
                        "end": 591,
                        "text": "Table 4",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF6"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 976,
                        "end": 983,
                        "text": "Table 5",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF7"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Quality Criterion Names & Definitions",
                "sec_num": "4.2.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "It is not straightforward to interpret the information presented in Table 5 . Objectively, what it shows is that we chose a much larger number of quality criteria to map certain original quality criteria names to than others. Fluency has been mapped to by far the largest number of different normalised criteria. This in turn means that there was the largest amount of variation in how different authors defined and operationalised Fluency (because we determined the normalised criteria on the basis of similarity groups of original criteria). In other words, the papers that used Fluency divided into 15 subsets each with a distinct understanding of Fluency shared by members of the subset. 15 is a large number in this context and indicates a high level of disagreement, in particular combined with the presence of many multiple sets. Conversely, a criterion like Clarity has a high level of agreement (despite also being high frequency as shown in Table 4 ). Figure 3 shows a graphical representation of some of our mappings from original to normalised quality criteria in the form of a Sankey diagram, and illustrates the complexity of the correspondences between the two.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 68,
                        "end": 75,
                        "text": "Table 5",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF7"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 951,
                        "end": 958,
                        "text": "Table 4",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF6"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 962,
                        "end": 970,
                        "text": "Figure 3",
                        "ref_id": "FIGREF2"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Quality Criterion Names & Definitions",
                "sec_num": "4.2.2"
            },
            {
                "text": "Prompts and questions put to evaluators (e.g. how well does this text read?) often try to explain the aspect of quality that evaluators are supposed to be evaluating using descriptors other than the criterion name, and can end up explaining one criterion in terms of one or more others (e.g. for Fluency, how grammatical and readable is this text?). We found fifty cases where the prompt/question references multiple normalised criteria (two and more), with a mean of 2.48 (min = 2, max = 4, median = 2, stdev = 0.64). Table 6 lists pairs of criteria referenced in the same prompt/question, ordered by pair-level frequency. For example, there were four prompts/questions that referenced both Fluency and Grammaticality. There is evidence that questions combining multiple quality criteria cause more variation in the responses, because different participants may weigh the importance of one of the quality criteria differently in their response; such complex quality criteria may best be measured using multiple items rather than a single question (van der Lee et al., 2019).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 519,
                        "end": 526,
                        "text": "Table 6",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF9"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Prompts/questions put to evaluators",
                "sec_num": "4.2.3"
            },
            {
                "text": "Perhaps the most compelling evidence we found in our analyses in this paper is that (i) there is very little shared practice in human evaluation in NLG, in particular with respect to what to name the aspects of quality we wish to evaluate, and how to define them; and (ii) the information presented in NLG papers about human evaluations is very rarely complete. The latter can be addressed through better reporting in future work (see below). The former is far less straightforward to address. One key observation from our data is that the same quality criterion names are often used by different authors to refer to very different aspects of quality, and that different names often refer to the same aspect of quality. We further found that more than half of the papers failed to define the criteria they evaluated, and about a quarter omitted to name the criteria being evaluated.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Discussion & Recommendations",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "Our analysis has emphasised the need for better reporting of details of evaluations in order to help readers understand what aspect of quality is being evaluated and how. It took the first nine authors of the paper 25-30 minutes on average even in the final round of annotations to annotate a single paper, a measure of how hard it currently is to locate information about evaluations in papers.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Discussion & Recommendations",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "Based on this experience we have put together a list of what we see as reporting recommendations for human evaluations presented in Table 7 . The aim is to provide authors with a simple list of what information to include in reports of human evaluations at a minimum. The next step will be to develop the recommendations in Table 7 into a Human Evaluation Checklist giving full details of what to include in reports of human evaluation experiments, to complement existing recommendations for datasets and machine learning models, their intended uses, and potential abuses (Bender and Friedman, 2018; Gebru et al., 2018; Mitchell et al., 2019; Pineau, 2020; Ribeiro et al., 2020) , aimed at making \"critical information accessible that previously could only be found by users with great effort\" (Bender and Friedman, 2018) .",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 572,
                        "end": 599,
                        "text": "(Bender and Friedman, 2018;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF3"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 600,
                        "end": 619,
                        "text": "Gebru et al., 2018;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF8"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 620,
                        "end": 642,
                        "text": "Mitchell et al., 2019;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF11"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 643,
                        "end": 656,
                        "text": "Pineau, 2020;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF15"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 657,
                        "end": 678,
                        "text": "Ribeiro et al., 2020)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF18"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 794,
                        "end": 821,
                        "text": "(Bender and Friedman, 2018)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF3"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 132,
                        "end": 139,
                        "text": "Table 7",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF10"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 324,
                        "end": 331,
                        "text": "Table 7",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF10"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Discussion & Recommendations",
                "sec_num": "5"
            },
            {
                "text": "We have presented our new dataset of 165 papers each annotated with 16 attribute values that encode different aspects of the human evaluations reported in them. We described the carefully developed and validated annotation scheme we created for this How do you define that quality criterion? Provide a definition for your criterion. It is okay to cite another paper for the definition; however, it should be easy for your readers to figure out what aspects of the text you wanted to evaluate.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Conclusion",
                "sec_num": "6"
            },
            {
                "text": "How are you collecting responses? Direct ratings, post-edits, surveys, observation? Rankings or rating scales with numbers or verbal descriptors? Provide the full prompt or question with the set of possible response values where applicable, e.g. when using Likert scales. instructions, prompts, and questions What are your participants responding to? Following instructions, answering a question, agreeing with a statement? The exact text you give your participants is important for anyone trying to replicate your experiments. In addition to the immediate task instructions, question or prompt, provide the full set of instructions as part of your experimental design materials in an appendix. purpose, and reported analyses and visualisations over the annotations.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "OPERATIONALISATION instrument type",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Our analyses shed light on the kinds of evaluations NLG researchers have conducted and reported over the past 20 years. We have found a very high level of diversity of approaches, and fundamental gaps in reported details, including missing definitions of the aspect of quality being evaluated in about two-thirds of papers, and absence of basic details such as language, system input/output, etc.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "OPERATIONALISATION instrument type",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "We have proposed normalised quality criteria names and definitions to help us understand which evaluations actually evaluate the same thing. These are not intended as a set of standardised evaluation criteria that can be taken off the shelf and used. Rather, they are a first step in that direction. For a standardised set it would be desirable to ground evaluation criteria in related and much researched constructs in other fields. For example, there is a long history of studying readability (Chall, 1958; De Clercq et al., 2014) .",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 495,
                        "end": 508,
                        "text": "(Chall, 1958;",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF5"
                    },
                    {
                        "start": 509,
                        "end": 532,
                        "text": "De Clercq et al., 2014)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF6"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "OPERATIONALISATION instrument type",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Our single main conclusion is that, as a field, we need to standardise experimental design and terminology, so as to make it easier to understand and compare the human evaluations we perform. English  46  95  141  German  2  5   Japanese  4  3  7  Spanish  1  3  4  Chinese  1  3  4  Dutch  1  3  4  Other (13 languages) 1 14 15 ",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 192,
                        "end": 320,
                        "text": "English  46  95  141  German  2  5   Japanese  4  3  7  Spanish  1  3  4  Chinese  1  3  4  Dutch  1  3  4  Other (13 languages)",
                        "ref_id": "TABREF0"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "OPERATIONALISATION instrument type",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Answerability from input: The degree to which an output (typically a question or problem) can be answered or solved with content/information from the input.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "D Alphabetical list of quality criterion names and definitions",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Appropriateness: The degree to which the output is appropriate in the given context/situation.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "D Alphabetical list of quality criterion names and definitions",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Appropriateness (both form and content): The degree to which the output as a whole is appropriate in the given context/situation. E.g. \"does the text appropriately consider the parents' emotional state in the given scenario?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "D Alphabetical list of quality criterion names and definitions",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Appropriateness (content): The degree to which the content of the output is appropriate in the given context/situation. E.g. \"is the question coherent with other generated questions?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "D Alphabetical list of quality criterion names and definitions",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Appropriateness (form): The degree to which the form of the output is appropriate in the given context/situation. E.g. \"are the lexical choices appropriate given the target reader?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "D Alphabetical list of quality criterion names and definitions",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Clarity: The degree to which the meaning of an output is absorbed without effort, i.e. is easy to understand as well as possible to understand.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "D Alphabetical list of quality criterion names and definitions",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Coherence: The degree to which the content/meaning of an output is presented in a well-structured, logical and meaningful way. E.g. \"does the generated text accord with the correct logic?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "D Alphabetical list of quality criterion names and definitions",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Cohesion: The degree to which the different parts of an output form a cohesive whole. Cohesion is the grammatical and lexical linking within a text or sentence that holds a text together and gives it meaning.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "D Alphabetical list of quality criterion names and definitions",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The degree to which outputs are correct. Evaluations of this type ask in effect 'Is this output correct?' with criteria in child nodes adding more detail.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Correctness of outputs:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Correctness of outputs in their own right: The degree to which an output is correct/accurate/true, looking only at the output.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Correctness of outputs:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Correctness of outputs in their own right (both form and content): The degree to which both the form and content of an output are correct, looking only at the output.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Correctness of outputs:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Correctness of outputs in their own right (content): The degree to which the content of an output is correct, looking only at the output. E.g. \"is this dictionary reference semantically complete?\" (best = no further info needed).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Correctness of outputs:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Correctness of outputs in their own right (form): The degree to which the form of an output is correct, looking only at the output.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Correctness of outputs:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Correctness of outputs relative to external frame of reference: The degree to which an output is correct/accurate/true relative to a system-external frame of reference.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Correctness of outputs:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Correctness of outputs relative to external frame of reference (both form and content) : The degree to which the form and content of an output is correct/accurate/true relative to a system-external frame of reference.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Correctness of outputs:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Correctness of outputs relative to external frame of reference (content): The degree to which the content of an output is correct/accurate/true relative to a system-external frame of reference. E.g. \"are the contents of the text factually true?\" (best = no untrue facts).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Correctness of outputs:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The degree to which the form of an output is correct/accurate/true relative to a system-external frame of reference. E.g. \"does the generated question use correct named entity names as given in this database?\" (best = all as in database).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Correctness of outputs relative to external frame of reference (form):",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Correctness of outputs relative to input: The degree to which an output is correct/accurate/true relative to the input.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Correctness of outputs relative to external frame of reference (form):",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Correctness of outputs relative to input (both form and content): The degree to which the form and content of an output is correct/accurate/true relative to the input.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Correctness of outputs relative to external frame of reference (form):",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Correctness of outputs relative to input (content): The degree to which the content of an output is correct/accurate/true relative to the input. E.g. \"is all the meaning of the input preserved?\", \"to what extent does the generated text convey the information in the input table?\" (best = all the information).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Correctness of outputs relative to external frame of reference (form):",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Correctness of outputs relative to input (form): The degree to which the form of an output is correct/accurate/true relative to the input. E.g. \" how similar are the words to the input?\" (best = same).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Correctness of outputs relative to external frame of reference (form):",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Detectability of controlled feature [PROPERTY]: The degree to which a property that the outputs are intended to have (i.e. because it's controlled by input to the generation process) is detectable in the output. Open class criterion; PROPERTY can be a wide variety of different things, e.g. conversational, meaningful, poetic, vague/specific, etc.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Correctness of outputs relative to external frame of reference (form):",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The degree to which the outputs make communication easy, typically in a dialogue situation. E.g. \"how smoothly did the conversation go with the virtual agent?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Ease of communication:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Effect on reader/listener [EFFECT]: The degree to which an output has an EFFECT in the listener/reader. Open class criterion; EFFECT can be a wide variety of different things, e.g. inducing a specific emotional state, inducing behaviour change, etc. E.g. measuring how much the user learnt from reading the output; \"are you feeling sad after reading the text?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Ease of communication:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Fluency: The degree to which a text 'flows well' and is not e.g. a sequence of unconnected parts.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Ease of communication:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Goodness as system explanation: Degree to which an output is satisfactory as an explanation of system behaviour. E.g. \"does the text provide an explanation that helps users understand the decision the system has come to?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Ease of communication:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Goodness of outputs (excluding correctness): The degree to which outputs are good. Evaluations of this type ask in effect 'Is this output good?' with criteria in child nodes adding more detail.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Ease of communication:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Goodness of outputs in their own right: The degree to which an output is good, looking only at the output.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Ease of communication:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Goodness of outputs in their own right (both form and content): The degree to which the form and content of an output are good, looking only at the output.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Ease of communication:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Goodness of outputs in their own right (content): The degree to which the content of an output is good, looking only at the output.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Ease of communication:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Goodness of outputs in their own right (form): The degree to which the form of an output is good, looking only at the output. E.g. \"is the generated response a complete sentence?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Ease of communication:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Goodness of outputs relative to external frame of reference: The degree to which an output is good relative to a system-external frame of reference.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Ease of communication:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Goodness of outputs relative to grounding: The degree to which an output is good relative to grounding in another modality and/or real-world or virtual-world objects as a frame of reference.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Ease of communication:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The degree to which an output is good relative to human language use as a frame of reference.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Goodness of outputs relative to input: The degree to which an output is good relative to the input.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Goodness of outputs relative to input (both form and content): The degree to which the form and content of an output is good relative to the input. E.g. \"does the output text reflect the input topic labels?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Goodness of outputs relative to input (content): The degree to which an output is good relative to the input. E.g. \"does the output text include the important content from inputs?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Goodness of outputs relative to input (form): The degree to which the form of an output is good relative to the input. E.g. in paraphrasing: \"is the surface form of the output different enough from that of the input?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Goodness of outputs relative to linguistic context in which they are read/heard: The degree to which an output is good relative to linguistic context as a frame of reference.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Goodness of outputs relative to system use: The degree to which an output is good relative to system use as a frame of reference.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Grammaticality: The degree to which an output is free of grammatical errors.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Humanlikeness: The degree to which an output could have been produced by a human.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Humanlikeness (both form and content): The degree to which the form and content of an output could have been produced/chosen by a human.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Humanlikeness (content): The degree to which the content of an output could have been chosen by a human (irrespective of quality of form).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Humanlikeness (form): The degree to which the form of an output could have been produced by a human (irrespective of quality of content).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Inferrability of speaker/author stance [OBJECT]: The degree to which the speaker's/author's stance towards an OB-JECT is inferrable from the text. E.g. \"rank these texts in order of positivity expressed towards the company.\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Inferrability of speaker/author trait [TRAIT]: The degree to which it is inferrable from the output whether the speaker/author has a TRAIT. Open-class criterion; TRAIT can be a wide variety of different things, e.g. personality type, identity of author/speaker, etc. E.g. \"who among the writers of these texts do you think is the most conscientious?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Information content of outputs: The amount of information conveyed by an output. Can range from 'too much' to 'not enough', or 'very little' to 'a lot'. E.g. \"is the general level of details provided in the text satisfactory?\", \"do you personally find the amount of information in the text optimal?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Multiple (list all): use only if authors use single criterion name which corresponds to more than one criterion name in the above list. Include list of corresponding criteria in brackets.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Naturalness: The degree to which the output is likely to be used by a native speaker in the given context/situation.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Naturalness (both form and content): The degree to which the form and content of an output is likely to be produced/chosen by a native speaker in the given context/situation.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Naturalness (content): The degree to which the content of an output is likely to be chosen by a native speaker in the given context/situation.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Naturalness (form): The degree to which the form of an output is likely to be produced by a native speaker in the given context/situation.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Nonredundancy (both form and content): The degree to which the form and content of an output are free of redundant elements, such as repetition, overspecificity, etc.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Nonredundancy (content): The degree to which the content of an output is free of redundant elements, such as repetition, overspecificity, etc.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Nonredundancy (form): The degree to which the form of an output is free of redundant elements, such as repetition, overspecificity, etc.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Quality of outputs: Maximally underspecified quality criterion. E.g. when participants are asked which of a set of alternative outputs they prefer (with no further details).",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Readability: The degree to which an output is easy to read, the reader not having to look back and reread earlier text.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Referent resolvability: The degree to which the referents of the referring expressions in an output can be identified.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Speech quality: The degree to which the speech is of good quality in spoken outputs.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Spelling accuracy: The degree to which an output is free of spelling errors.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Text Property [PROPERTY]: The degree to which an output has a specific property (excluding features controlled by an input parameter). Open class criterion; PROPERTY could be a wide variety of different things: conversational, informative, etc. E.g. \"does the text have the characteristics of a poem?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Text Property [Complexity/simplicity]: The degree to which an output is complex/simple.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Text Property [Complexity/simplicity (both form and content)]: The degree to which an output as a whole is complex/simple.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Text Property [Complexity/simplicity (content)]: The degree to which an output conveys complex/simple content/meaning/information. E.g. \"does the generated question involve reasoning over multiple sentences from the document?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Text Property [Complexity/simplicity (form)]: The degree to which an output is expressed in complex/simple terms. E.g.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "\"does the generated text contain a lot of technical or specialist words?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Understandability: Degree to which the meaning of an output can be understood.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Usability: The degree to which the system in the context of which outputs are generated is usable. E.g. user-system interaction measurements, or direct usability ratings for the system.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Usefulness (nonspecific): The degree to which an output is useful. E.g. measuring task success, or questions like \"did you find the system advice useful?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Usefulness for task/information need: The degree to which an output is useful for a given task or information need. E.g. \"does the description help you to select an area for buying a house?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "User satisfaction: The degree to which users are satisfied with the system in the context of which outputs are generated. E.g. in a dialogue system \"how satisfied were you with the booking you just made?\"",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Wellorderedness: The degree to which the content of an output is well organised and presents information in the right order.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "E Taxonomy of Quality Criteria Figure 4 shows the 71 quality criteria (plus some filler nodes, in grey) structured hierarchically into a taxonomy. For the top three levels of branches in the taxonomy we used the quality criterion properties from Belz et al. (2020) : (i) goodness vs. correctness vs. features; (ii) quality of output in its own right vs. quality of output relative to input vs. quality of output relative to an external frame of reference (yellow, red, orange); (iii) form of output vs. content of output vs. both form and content of output (green, blue, purple). Note that the taxonomy is not necessarily complete in this state; it contains all and only those 71 distinct criteria that resulted from our survey. ",
                "cite_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 246,
                        "end": 264,
                        "text": "Belz et al. (2020)",
                        "ref_id": "BIBREF2"
                    }
                ],
                "ref_spans": [
                    {
                        "start": 31,
                        "end": 39,
                        "text": "Figure 4",
                        "ref_id": "FIGREF5"
                    }
                ],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Goodness of outputs relative to how humans use language:",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The dataset of annotated PDFs, annotation spreadsheet, annotation scheme, code, and guidelines resulting from the work are available in the project repository: https:// evalgenchal.github.io/20Y-CHEC/",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "The increase in summarisation may be due to an increase in summarisation papers submitted to INLG, the increase in end-to-end generation in part to changing terminology.3 For explanations of attribute values see annotation guidelines in Supplementary Material.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "",
                "sec_num": null
            }
        ],
        "back_matter": [
            {
                "text": "Howcroft and Rieser's contributions were supported under EPSRC project MaDrIgAL (EP/N017536/1). Gkatzia's contribution was supported under the EPSRC project CiViL (EP/T014598/1).Mille's contribution was supported by the European Commission under the H2020 contracts 870930-RIA, 779962-RIA, 825079-RIA, 786731-RIA.",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Acknowledgments",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "Correctness",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Quality of outputs",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "EFFECT = { learns, is interested, changes behaviour, feels entertained, is amused, is engaged, feels in a specific emotional state... }",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Effect on reader/listener [EFFECT]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "OBJECT = { person, policy, product, team, topic, ... }",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Inferrability of speaker/author stance [OBJECT]",
                "sec_num": null
            },
            {
                "text": "TRAIT = { personality type, identity of author/speaker, ... }",
                "cite_spans": [],
                "ref_spans": [],
                "eq_spans": [],
                "section": "Inferrability of speaker/author trait [TRAIT]",
                "sec_num": null
            }
        ],
        "bib_entries": {
            "BIBREF0": {
                "ref_id": "b0",
                "title": "Evaluation methodologies in automatic question generation",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Jacopo",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Amidei",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Paul",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Piwek",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Alistair",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Willis",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2013,
                "venue": "Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Natural Language Generation",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "307--317",
                "other_ids": {
                    "DOI": [
                        "10.18653/v1/W18-6537"
                    ]
                },
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Jacopo Amidei, Paul Piwek, and Alistair Willis. 2018. Evaluation methodologies in automatic question generation 2013-2018. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Natural Language Gen- eration, pages 307-317, Tilburg University, The Netherlands. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF1": {
                "ref_id": "b1",
                "title": "Inter-Coder Agreement for Computational Linguistics",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Ron",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Artstein",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Massimo",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Poesio",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2008,
                "venue": "Computational Linguistics",
                "volume": "34",
                "issue": "4",
                "pages": "555--596",
                "other_ids": {
                    "DOI": [
                        "10.1162/coli.07-034-R2"
                    ]
                },
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Ron Artstein and Massimo Poesio. 2008. Inter-Coder Agreement for Computational Linguistics. Compu- tational Linguistics, 34(4):555-596.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF2": {
                "ref_id": "b2",
                "title": "Disentangling the properties of human evaluation methods: A classification system to support comparability, meta-evaluation and reproducibility testing",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Anya",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Belz",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Simon",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Mille",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "David",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Howcroft",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2020,
                "venue": "Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Natural Language Generation",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Anya Belz, Simon Mille, and David Howcroft. 2020. Disentangling the properties of human evaluation methods: A classification system to support compa- rability, meta-evaluation and reproducibility testing. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Natural Language Generation.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF3": {
                "ref_id": "b3",
                "title": "Data Statements for Natural Language Processing: Toward Mitigating System Bias and Enabling Better Science. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Emily",
                        "middle": [
                            "M"
                        ],
                        "last": "Bender",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Batya",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Friedman",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2018,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "6",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "587--604",
                "other_ids": {
                    "DOI": [
                        "10.1162/tacl_a_00041"
                    ]
                },
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Emily M. Bender and Batya Friedman. 2018. Data Statements for Natural Language Processing: To- ward Mitigating System Bias and Enabling Better Science. Transactions of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, 6:587-604.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF4": {
                "ref_id": "b4",
                "title": "Evaluation of text generation: A survey",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Asli",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Celikyilmaz",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Elizabeth",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Clark",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Jianfeng",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Gao",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2020,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Asli Celikyilmaz, Elizabeth Clark, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Evaluation of text generation: A survey.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF5": {
                "ref_id": "b5",
                "title": "Readability: An Appraisal of Research and Application. The Ohio State University",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Jeanne",
                        "middle": [
                            "S"
                        ],
                        "last": "Chall",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 1958,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Jeanne S. Chall. 1958. Readability: An Appraisal of Research and Application. The Ohio State Univer- sity, Columbus, OH, USA.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF6": {
                "ref_id": "b6",
                "title": "Using the Crowd for Readability Prediction",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "V\u00e9ronique",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Orph\u00e9e De Clercq",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Bart",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Hoste",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Philip",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Desmet",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Martine",
                        "middle": [
                            "De"
                        ],
                        "last": "Van Oosten",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Lieve",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Cock",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Macken",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2014,
                "venue": "Natural Language Engineering",
                "volume": "20",
                "issue": "03",
                "pages": "293--325",
                "other_ids": {
                    "DOI": [
                        "10.1017/S1351324912000344"
                    ]
                },
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Orph\u00e9e De Clercq, V\u00e9ronique Hoste, Bart Desmet, Philip Van Oosten, Martine De Cock, and Lieve Macken. 2014. Using the Crowd for Readabil- ity Prediction. Natural Language Engineering, 20(03):293-325.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF7": {
                "ref_id": "b7",
                "title": "Survey of the state of the art in natural language generation: Core tasks, applications and evaluation",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Albert",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Gatt",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Emiel",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Krahmer",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2018,
                "venue": "Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research",
                "volume": "61",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "65--170",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Albert Gatt and Emiel Krahmer. 2018. Survey of the state of the art in natural language generation: Core tasks, applications and evaluation. Journal of Artifi- cial Intelligence Research, 61:65-170.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF8": {
                "ref_id": "b8",
                "title": "Datasheets for Datasets",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Timnit",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Gebru",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Jamie",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Morgenstern",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Briana",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Vecchione",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Jennifer",
                        "middle": [
                            "Wortman"
                        ],
                        "last": "Vaughan",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Hanna",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Wallach",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Hal",
                        "middle": [
                            "Daum\u00e9"
                        ],
                        "last": "Iii",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Kate",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Crawford",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2018,
                "venue": "Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vec- chione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wal- lach, Hal Daum\u00e9 Iii, and Kate Crawford. 2018. Datasheets for Datasets. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Fairness, Accountability, and Trans- parency in Machine Learning, Stockholm, Sweden.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF9": {
                "ref_id": "b9",
                "title": "A snapshot of NLG evaluation practices 2005-2014",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Dimitra",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Gkatzia",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Saad",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Mahamood",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2015,
                "venue": "Proceedings of the 15th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG)",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "57--60",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Dimitra Gkatzia and Saad Mahamood. 2015. A snap- shot of NLG evaluation practices 2005-2014. In Pro- ceedings of the 15th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG), pages 57-60.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF10": {
                "ref_id": "b10",
                "title": "Best practices for the human evaluation of automatically generated text",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Chris",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Van Der Lee",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Albert",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Gatt",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Sander",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Emiel Van Miltenburg",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Emiel",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Wubben",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Krahmer",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2019,
                "venue": "Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Natural Language Generation",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "355--368",
                "other_ids": {
                    "DOI": [
                        "10.18653/v1/W19-8643"
                    ]
                },
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Chris van der Lee, Albert Gatt, Emiel van Miltenburg, Sander Wubben, and Emiel Krahmer. 2019. Best practices for the human evaluation of automatically generated text. In Proceedings of the 12th Interna- tional Conference on Natural Language Generation, pages 355-368, Tokyo, Japan. Association for Com- putational Linguistics.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF11": {
                "ref_id": "b11",
                "title": "Model Cards for Model Reporting",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Margaret",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Mitchell",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Simone",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Wu",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Andrew",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Zaldivar",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Parker",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Barnes",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Lucy",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Vasserman",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Ben",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Hutchinson",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Elena",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Spitzer",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Deborah",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Inioluwa",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Timnit",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Raji",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Gebru",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2019,
                "venue": "Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency -FAT* '19",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "220--229",
                "other_ids": {
                    "DOI": [
                        "10.1145/3287560.3287596"
                    ]
                },
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. 2019. Model Cards for Model Reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Ac- countability, and Transparency -FAT* '19, pages 220-229, Atlanta, GA, USA. ACM Press.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF12": {
                "ref_id": "b12",
                "title": "Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "David",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Moher",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Alessandro",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Liberati",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Jennifer",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Tetzlaff",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Douglas G",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Altman",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2009,
                "venue": "BMJ",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {
                    "DOI": [
                        "10.1136/bmj.b2535"
                    ]
                },
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, and Douglas G Altman. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement. BMJ, 339.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF13": {
                "ref_id": "b13",
                "title": "Why we need new evaluation metrics for NLG",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Jekaterina",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Novikova",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Ond\u0159ej",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Du\u0161ek",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Amanda",
                        "middle": [
                            "Cercas"
                        ],
                        "last": "Curry",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Verena",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Rieser",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2017,
                "venue": "Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "2241--2252",
                "other_ids": {
                    "DOI": [
                        "10.18653/v1/D17-1238"
                    ]
                },
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Jekaterina Novikova, Ond\u0159ej Du\u0161ek, Amanda Cer- cas Curry, and Verena Rieser. 2017. Why we need new evaluation metrics for NLG. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2241-2252, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF14": {
                "ref_id": "b14",
                "title": "RankME: Reliable human ratings for natural language generation",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Jekaterina",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Novikova",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Ond\u0159ej",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Du\u0161ek",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Verena",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Rieser",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2018,
                "venue": "Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies",
                "volume": "2",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "72--78",
                "other_ids": {
                    "DOI": [
                        "10.18653/v1/N18-2012"
                    ]
                },
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Jekaterina Novikova, Ond\u0159ej Du\u0161ek, and Verena Rieser. 2018. RankME: Reliable human ratings for natural language generation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 72-78, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF15": {
                "ref_id": "b15",
                "title": "The Machine Learning Reproducibility Checklist (v2.0",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Joelle",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Pineau",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2020,
                "venue": "",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Joelle Pineau. 2020. The Machine Learning Repro- ducibility Checklist (v2.0, Apr.7 2020).",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF16": {
                "ref_id": "b16",
                "title": "A Structured Review of the Validity of BLEU",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Ehud",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Reiter",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2018,
                "venue": "Computational Linguistics",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "1--8",
                "other_ids": {
                    "DOI": [
                        "10.1162/coli_a_00322"
                    ]
                },
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Ehud Reiter. 2018. A Structured Review of the Validity of BLEU. Computational Linguistics, pages 1-8.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF17": {
                "ref_id": "b17",
                "title": "An investigation into the validity of some metrics for automatically evaluating natural language generation systems",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Ehud",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Reiter",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Anja",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Belz",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2009,
                "venue": "Computational Linguistics",
                "volume": "35",
                "issue": "4",
                "pages": "529--558",
                "other_ids": {
                    "DOI": [
                        "10.1162/coli.2009.35.4.35405"
                    ]
                },
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Ehud Reiter and Anja Belz. 2009. An investigation into the validity of some metrics for automatically evalu- ating natural language generation systems. Compu- tational Linguistics, 35(4):529-558.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF18": {
                "ref_id": "b18",
                "title": "Beyond accuracy: Behavioral testing of NLP models with CheckList",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Tongshuang",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Marco Tulio Ribeiro",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Carlos",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Wu",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Sameer",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Guestrin",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Singh",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2020,
                "venue": "Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "4902--4912",
                "other_ids": {},
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Be- havioral testing of NLP models with CheckList. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, pages 4902- 4912, Online. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.",
                "links": null
            },
            "BIBREF19": {
                "ref_id": "b19",
                "title": "Towards best experiment design for evaluating dialogue system output",
                "authors": [
                    {
                        "first": "Sashank",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Santhanam",
                        "suffix": ""
                    },
                    {
                        "first": "Samira",
                        "middle": [],
                        "last": "Shaikh",
                        "suffix": ""
                    }
                ],
                "year": 2019,
                "venue": "Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Natural Language Generation",
                "volume": "",
                "issue": "",
                "pages": "88--94",
                "other_ids": {
                    "DOI": [
                        "10.18653/v1/W19-8610"
                    ]
                },
                "num": null,
                "urls": [],
                "raw_text": "Sashank Santhanam and Samira Shaikh. 2019. To- wards best experiment design for evaluating dia- logue system output. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Natural Language Gen- eration, pages 88-94, Tokyo, Japan. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
                "links": null
            }
        },
        "ref_entries": {
            "FIGREF0": {
                "num": null,
                "text": "Number of INLG/ENLG papers per year with human evaluation (black) and overall (full bar).",
                "type_str": "figure",
                "uris": null
            },
            "FIGREF2": {
                "num": null,
                "text": "Part of Sankey diagram of evaluation criteria names from NLG papers between 2000 & 2019 (left) mapped to normalised criteria names representing our assessment of what was actually measured (right).",
                "type_str": "figure",
                "uris": null
            },
            "FIGREF3": {
                "num": null,
                "text": "of outputs in their own right; goodness of outputs in their own right (form); goodness of outputs in their own right (both form and content; grammaticality; humanlikeness); readability; [multiple (3): goodness of outputs in their own right (both form and content), grammaticality, naturalness (form)]; [multiple (2): goodness of outputs in their own right (form), grammaticality]; [multiple (3): fluency, grammaticality]; [multiple (2): grammaticality, readability]; [multiple (2): fluency, readability]; [multiple (3): goodness of outputs in their own right (both form and content), grammaticality, naturalness (form)]; [multiple (3): coherence, humanlikeness, quality of outputs]; [multiple (2): goodness of outputs in their own right (both form and content)of outputs in their own right; goodness of outputs in their own right (both form and content); quality of outputs; usefulness for task/information need; readability; [multiple (2): coherence, fluency]; [multiple (2): fluency, readability]; [multiple (2): readability, understandability]; [multiple (3): clarity, correctness of outputs in their own right (form), goodness of outputs in their own right] 10 coherence appropriateness (content); coherence; correctness of outputs in their own right (content); goodness of outputs in their own right (content); goodness of outputs relative to linguistic context in which they are read/heard; wellorderedness; [multiple (2): appropriateness (content), understandability]; [multiple (2): fluency, grammaticality] 8 naturalness clarity; humanlikeness; naturalness; naturalness (both form and content); [multiple (2): naturalness (both form and content), readability]; [multiple (2): grammaticality, naturalness] 6 quality goodness of outputs in their own right; goodness of outputs in their own right (both form and content); goodness of outputs (excluding correctness); quality of outputs; [multiple (3): correctness of outputs relative to input (content), Fluency, Grammaticality] 5 correctness appropriateness (content); correctness of outputs relative to input (content); correctness of outputs relative to input (both form and content); correctness of outputs relative to input (form) 4 usability clarity; quality of outputs; usefulness for task/information need; user satisfaction 4 clarity clarity; correctness of outputs relative to input (content); understandability; [multiple (2): clarity, understandability] 4 informativeness correctness of outputs relative to input (content); goodness of outputs relative to input (content); information content of outputs; text property (informative) 4 accuracy correctness of outputs relative to input; correctness of outputs relative to input (content); goodness of outputs relative to input (content); referent resolvability 4",
                "type_str": "figure",
                "uris": null
            },
            "FIGREF5": {
                "num": null,
                "text": "Taxonomy of normalised quality criteria; greyed out criterion names = not encountered, and/or included for increased completeness of taxonomy.",
                "type_str": "figure",
                "uris": null
            },
            "TABREF0": {
                "html": null,
                "type_str": "table",
                "num": null,
                "content": "<table/>",
                "text": "Number of papers at each selection stage."
            },
            "TABREF2": {
                "html": null,
                "type_str": "table",
                "num": null,
                "content": "<table/>",
                "text": "Krippendorff's alpha with Jaccard for closedclass attributes in the 1 st and 2 nd IAA tests. Numbers are not directly comparable (a) between the two tests due to changes in the annotation scheme; (b) within the 2 nd test due to different numbers of annotators."
            },
            "TABREF4": {
                "html": null,
                "type_str": "table",
                "num": null,
                "content": "<table/>",
                "text": "Counts of values selected for form of response elicitation."
            },
            "TABREF6": {
                "html": null,
                "type_str": "table",
                "num": null,
                "content": "<table/>",
                "text": ""
            },
            "TABREF7": {
                "html": null,
                "type_str": "table",
                "num": null,
                "content": "<table/>",
                "text": "Quality criterion names as given by authors mapped to normalised criterion names reflecting our assessment of what the authors actually measured. 'Count' is the number of different mappings found for each original criterion name."
            },
            "TABREF9": {
                "html": null,
                "type_str": "table",
                "num": null,
                "content": "<table/>",
                "text": "Quality criteria most frequently combined in a single prompt/question put to evaluators. Show examples of inputs and outputs of your system. Additionally, if you include pre and post-processing steps in your pipeline, clarify whether your input is to the preprocessing, and your output is from the post-processing, step, or what you consider to be the 'core' NLG system. In general, make it easy for readers to determine what form the data is in as it flows through your system."
            },
            "TABREF10": {
                "html": null,
                "type_str": "table",
                "num": null,
                "content": "<table/>",
                "text": "Reporting of human evaluations in NLG: Recommended minimum information to include."
            },
            "TABREF11": {
                "html": null,
                "type_str": "table",
                "num": null,
                "content": "<table><tr><td>B System task</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>TASK</td><td colspan=\"4\">Before 2010 Since Total</td></tr><tr><td>data-to-text generation</td><td/><td>14</td><td>34</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>dialogue turn generation</td><td/><td>7</td><td>14</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>summarisation (text-to-text)</td><td/><td>1</td><td>11</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">referring expression generation</td><td>4</td><td>7</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>end-to-end text generation</td><td/><td>1</td><td>8</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>question generation</td><td/><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>feature-controlled generation</td><td/><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">surface realisation (slr to text)</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>deep generation (dlr to text)</td><td/><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">paraphrasing / lossless simplification 2</td><td>6</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Other (15 tasks)</td><td/><td>20</td><td>17</td><td>37</td></tr></table>",
                "text": "Language frequencies before and after 2010."
            },
            "TABREF12": {
                "html": null,
                "type_str": "table",
                "num": null,
                "content": "<table><tr><td>C System Output</td><td/></tr><tr><td>Output</td><td>Count</td></tr><tr><td>text: multiple sentences</td><td>68</td></tr><tr><td>text: sentence</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>text: documents</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>text: subsentential units of text</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>text: variable-length</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>no output (human generation)</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>raw/structured data</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>text: dialogue</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>shallow linguistic representation (slr)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>deep linguistic representation (dlr)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>speech</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>text: other (please specify): templates</td><td>1</td></tr></table>",
                "text": "Task frequencies before and after 2010."
            },
            "TABREF13": {
                "html": null,
                "type_str": "table",
                "num": null,
                "content": "<table/>",
                "text": "Counts for system output attribute."
            }
        }
    }
}