Papers › Evaluating Rewards for Question Generation Models

Evaluating Rewards for Question Generation Models

28 Feb 2019NAACL 2019 6arXiv:1902.11049archive 2025-07-28

Tom Hosking, Sebastian Riedel

Recent approaches to question generation have used modifications to a Seq2Seq architecture inspired by advances in machine translation. Models are trained using teacher forcing to optimise only the one-step-ahead prediction. However, at test time, the model is asked to generate a whole sequence, causing errors to propagate through the generation process (exposure bias). A number of authors have proposed countering this bias by optimising for a reward that is less tightly coupled to the training data, using reinforcement learning. We optimise directly for quality metrics, including a novel approach using a discriminator learned directly from the training data. We confirm that policy gradient methods can be used to decouple training from the ground truth, leading to increases in the metrics used as rewards. We perform a human evaluation, and show that although these metrics have previously been assumed to be good proxies for question quality, they are poorly aligned with human judgement and the model simply learns to exploit the weaknesses of the reward source.

PaperPDFConference PDFCode

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Machine TranslationPolicy Gradient MethodsQuestion GenerationQuestion-GenerationReinforcement LearningTranslation

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

TaskDatasetModelMetricValueRank at snapshotLeaderboardReport
Question Generation SQuAD1.1 RNN +attn +copy BLEU-4 13.5 #12 of 13 Archive leaderboard report

Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.

Methods

LSTMSeq2SeqSigmoid ActivationTanh Activation

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections