EVALUATION OF NATURAL LANGUAGE INTERFACES TO DATA BASE SYSTEMS

I s e v a l u a t i o n , l i k e b e a u t y , i n the eye of the beho lde r? The answer i s f a r from s imple because i t depends on who i s c o n s i d e r e d to be the proper b e h o l d e r . E v a l u a c o r s may range from c a s u a l u s e r s to s o c i e t y as a whole , w i t h s y s tem builders, sophisticated users, linguists, grant providers, sys tem buye r s , and o t h e r s i n be tween. The members of t h l s pane l a r e sys tem b u i l d e r s and l i n g u i s t s or r a t h e r the t~ao fused i n t o one b u t , I b e l i e v e , i n t e r e s t e d i n a l l or a lmos t a l l a c t u a l or p o t e n t i a l b o d i e s of e v a l u a t o r s . One of our c o l l e a g u e s e x p r e s s e d a f o r c e f u l o p i n i o n w h i l e be ing a member of a s i m i l a r pane l a t l a s t y e a r ' s ACL c o n f e r e n c e : "Those of us on t h i s pane l and o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s i n the f i e l d s imply d o n ' t have the r i g h t to d e t e r m i n e whe the r a sys tem i s p r a c t i c a l . Only the u s e r s of such a sys tem can make Chat d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Only a u s e r can d e c i d e whe the r the hi. [ n a t u r a l l anguage] c a p a b i l i t y c o n s t i t u t e s s u f f i c i e n t added v a l u e to be deemed p r a c t i c a l Only a u s e r can d e c i d e i f the s y s t e m ' s f r equency of i n a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e i s s u f f i c i e n t l y low to be deemed p r a c t i c a l . Only a u s e r can dec ide whether the o v e r a l l NL i n t e r a c t i o n , t aken in t o t o , o f f e r s enough b e n e f i t s over a l t e r n a t i v e fo rmal i n t e r a c t i o n s to be deemed p r a c t i c a l " I l l . I t i s hard f o r me co d i s a g r e e , s i n c e I a rgued as f o r c e f u l l y on the b a s i s of my s tudy of use r s* e v a l u a t i o n of machine t r a n s l a t i o n [2] a s tudy which was prompted by the e v a l u a t i o n s of the q u a l i t y of machine t r a n s l a t i o n as viewed by l i n g u i s t s and u s e r s , r a n g i n g from 35Z a c c e p t a b l e f o r the former to 90Z fo r the l a t t e r . Whet the s tudy a l s o showed was cha t the p r a c t i c a l i t y of the o u t put cou ld indeed on ly be judged by the u s e r s , s i n c e even i ncomple t e and s t y l i s t i c a l l y v e r y i n e l e g a n t t r a n s l a t i o n s were found q u i t e u s e f u l in p r a c t i c e because t h e y , on the one hand, p r o v i d e d , however c r u d e l y , the i n f o r m a t i o n sought by the u s e r s , and, on the o t h e r hand, the u s e r s t hemse lves b rought knowledge chat made the t e x t s f a r more u n d e r s t a n d a b l e and u s e f u l then might appear co a n o n s p e c i a l i s t l i n g u i s t . But t h i s endorsement on mY p e r t of the use r a~ the u l t i m a t e judge i n e v a l u a t i o n s does not p r e c l u d e my f u l l y s u b s c r i b i n g co Norm Sondhe imer ' s [3] i n t r o d u c t o r y c o ~ e n t s co t h i s pane l s t a t i n g t h a t to "make p r o g r e s s as a f i e l d , we need to be a b l e Co e v a l u a t e . " We a re now l e s s l i k e l y co confuse the i s s u e of the e v a l u a t i o n by people l i k e o u r s e l v e s and the judgment of the u s e r s , l e s s l i k e l y to be s u r p r i s e d a t the d i s c r e p a n c i e s , and less likely to be surprised at the users" acceptance of the limitations of our NL interfaces. Also, we are far more aware of the fact chac evaluations of '~orth" or "quality" have Co be conducted in the cont e x t s of the a c t u a l , p e r c e i v e d needs . Zn e x t e n s i v e s t u d i e s on e v a l u a t i o n of i n n o v a t i o n s , M o s t e l l e r [ 4 ] , the r e c e n t l y r e t i r e d p r e s i d e n t of AAAS, found t h a t "successf u l i n n o v a t o r s b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d u s e r needs ; [and] pay more a t t e n t i o n to m a r k e t i n g . . . . " The same s o u r c e , however, l e ads me co the n o t o r i o u s d i f f i c u l t i e s of e v a l u a t i o n g i v e n the v i d e range of eva luaCors and t h e i r p u r p o s e s . We a r e a l l undoubted ly convinced of the v a l u e of NLI fo r the s o c i e t y as a whole , but the e v a l u a t i o n of expe r imen t s w i t h t h e s e i n t e r f a c e s i s a no the r m a t t e r . M o s c e l l e r was faced w i t h s o c i a l , s o c i o m e d i c a l , and medi c a l f i e l d s . Let me r ecoun t some of the s t u d i e s he and h i s team made f o r r e a s o n s which w i l l soon become o b v i ous . His teem scored a g i v e n program on a s c a l e from plus ~wo Co minus ~wo with zero meaning there was essentially uo g a i n . A c c o r d i n g l y , a s tudy of d e l i n q u e n t girls that identified th ~buc failed to prevent them from d e l i n q u e n c y r e c e i v e d a z e r o . L i k e w i s e , a zero was assigned Co a probation experiment for conviction for public drunkenness in which three methods were used: (I) no treatment, (2) an alcoholic clinic, and (3) A l c o h o l i c s Anonymous. S ince the "no t r e a t m e n t " group performed somewhat b e t t e r , s h o r t t e r m r e f e r r a l s were c o n s i d e r e d of no v a l u e . A minus one was g i v e n to a s tudy whose r e s u l t s were o p p o s i t e co those hoped f o r : a major i n s u r a n c e cOmpany i n c r e a s e d o u t p a t i e n t b e n e f i t s i n the hope of d e c r e a s i n g h o s p i t a l c o s t s , but the o u t p a t i e n t g r o u p ' s h o s p i t a l s t a y s i n c r e a s e d . F i n a l l y , a doub l e p l u s was swarded to an e x p e r i m e n t i n v o l v i n g the Sa lk v a c c i n e , which was, p r e d i c t a b l y , ve ry s u c c e s s f u l . Now t h i s k ind of e v a l u a t i o n may be j u s t i f i e d when the needs of the s o c i e t y a re a t s t a k e . I have gone i n t o t h e s e d e t a i l s , however , f o r the purpose of e x p r e s s i n g the o p i n i o n , i n which I know I ' m not a l o n e , t h a t n e l a t i v e r e s u l t s a r e as i m p o r t a n t as p o s i t i v e ones , t h a t e v a l u a t i o n i n our case i s a lmos t e q u i v a l e n t to the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d in an e x p e r i m e n t . An expe r imen t whose r e s u l t s would be t o t a l l y p r e d i c t a b l e would be a lmos t u s e l e s s , but one w i t h r e s u l t s d i f f e r e n t frOm those hoped fo r migh t be e m b a r r a s s i n g but v e r y v a l u a b l e . Another c ~ e n t prompted by those e v a l u a t i o n s i s cha t the application of any rigid, fine scale is totally inappropriate in the case of NLI evaluations.