Neural data-to-text generation: A comparison between pipeline and end-to-end architectures
About
Traditionally, most data-to-text applications have been designed using a modular pipeline architecture, in which non-linguistic input data is converted into natural language through several intermediate transformations. In contrast, recent neural models for data-to-text generation have been proposed as end-to-end approaches, where the non-linguistic input is rendered in natural language with much less explicit intermediate representations in-between. This study introduces a systematic comparison between neural pipeline and end-to-end data-to-text approaches for the generation of text from RDF triples. Both architectures were implemented making use of state-of-the art deep learning methods as the encoder-decoder Gated-Recurrent Units (GRU) and Transformer. Automatic and human evaluations together with a qualitative analysis suggest that having explicit intermediate steps in the generation process results in better texts than the ones generated by end-to-end approaches. Moreover, the pipeline models generalize better to unseen inputs. Data and code are publicly available.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data-to-text generation | WebNLG (test) | BLEU51.7 | 39 | |
| Text Generation | WebNLG seen categories (test) | BLEU60.59 | 18 | |
| Graph-to-text generation | WebNLG (test) | Fluency4.08 | 18 | |
| Graph-to-text generation | WebNLG seen v1.0 (test) | BLEU56.35 | 12 | |
| Graph-to-text generation | WebNLG all v1.0 (test) | BLEU51.68 | 11 | |
| Graph-to-text generation | WebNLG unseen v1.0 (test) | BLEU38.92 | 10 | |
| Data-to-text generation | WebNLG v1 (All) | BLEU51.68 | 9 | |
| Data-to-text generation | WebNLG Seen v1 | BLEU57.2 | 9 | |
| Data-to-text generation | WebNLG Unseen v1 | Fluency Score4.91 | 9 | |
| Table-to-text generation | WebNLG Unseen (test) | BLEU38.9 | 9 |