In this task, you will be presented with a context from an academic paper and a question separated with a 
. You have to answer the question based on the context.
--------
Question: To collect a diverse training dataset, we have randomly sampled 1000 posts each from the subreddits politics, business, science, and AskReddit, and 1000 additional posts from the Reddit frontpage. 
 Question: what are the topics pulled from Reddit?

Answer: politics, business, science, and AskReddit, and 1000 additional posts from the Reddit frontpage. 


Question: In Table TABREF15 we measure BLEU BIBREF19, NIST BIBREF20, METEOR BIBREF21, ROUGE-L BIBREF22 and CIDEr BIBREF23 metrics on the 2018 E2E NLG Challenge test data using the evaluation script provided by the organizers.  We use the gold standard selection during training and validation of the text generation model, as well as the automatic evaluation. As we deploy our text generation model for manual evaluation, we use a Conditional Random Field (CRF) model to predict which events to mention. The second human evaluation aimed at judging the acceptability of the output for production use in a news agency.  In the minimum edit evaluation, carried out by the annotator who created the news corpus, only factual mistakes and grammatical errors are corrected, resulting in text which may remain awkward or unfluent. The word error rate (WER) of the generated text compared to its corrected variant as a reference is 5.6% (6.2% disregarding punctuation).  The factual errors and their types are summarized in Table TABREF23. From the total of 510 game events generated by the system, 78 of these contained a factual error, i.e. 84.7% were generated without factual errors. Most fluency issues relate to the overall flow and structure of the report. Addressing these issues would require the model to take into account multiple events in a game, and combine the information more flexibly to avoid repetition.  The second human evaluation aimed at judging the acceptability of the output for production use in a news agency. The output is evaluated in terms of its usability for a news channel labelled as being machine-generated, i.e. not aiming at the level of a human journalist equipped with substantial background information. The evaluation was carried out by two journalists from the STT agency, who split the 59 games among themselves approximately evenly. 
 Question: What evaluation criteria and metrics were used to evaluate the generated text?

Answer: BLEU  NIST  METEOR  ROUGE-L CIDEr  evaluation script automatic evaluation human evaluation minimum edit evaluation word error rate (WER) factual errors and their types fluency issues acceptability of the output for production use in a news agency


Question:  In this section, we recommend a set of evaluation design changes that we believe are needed for assessing human–machine parity, and will strengthen the human evaluation of MT in general.

Recommendations ::: (R1) Choose professional translators as raters.
In our blind experiment (Section SECREF3), non-experts assess parity between human and machine translation where professional translators do not, indicating that the former neglect more subtle differences between different translation outputs.

Recommendations ::: (R2) Evaluate documents, not sentences.
When evaluating sentences in random order, professional translators judge machine translation more favourably as they cannot identify errors related to textual coherence and cohesion, such as different translations of the same product name. Our experiments show that using whole documents (i. e., full news articles) as unit of evaluation increases the rating gap between human and machine translation (Section SECREF4).

Recommendations ::: (R3) Evaluate fluency in addition to adequacy.
Raters who judge target language fluency without access to the source texts show a stronger preference for human translation than raters with access to the source texts (Sections SECREF4 and SECREF24). In all of our experiments, raters prefer human translation in terms of fluency while, just as in BIBREF3's BIBREF3 evaluation, they find no significant difference between human and machine translation in sentence-level adequacy (Tables TABREF21 and TABREF30). Our error analysis in Table TABREF34 also indicates that MT still lags behind human translation in fluency, specifically in grammaticality.

Recommendations ::: (R4) Do not heavily edit reference translations for fluency.
In professional translation workflows, texts are typically revised with a focus on target language fluency after an initial translation step. As shown in our experiment in Section SECREF24, aggressive revision can make translations more fluent but less accurate, to the degree that they become indistinguishable from MT in terms of accuracy (Table TABREF30).

Recommendations ::: (R5) Use original source texts.
Raters show a significant preference for human over machine translations of texts that were originally written in the source language, but not for source texts that are translations themselves (Section SECREF35). Our results are further evidence that translated texts tend to be simpler than original texts, and in turn easier to translate with MT. 
 Question: What recommendations do they offer?

Answer:
 Choose professional translators as raters  Evaluate documents, not sentences Evaluate fluency in addition to adequacy Do not heavily edit reference translations for fluency Use original source texts