Standard decoders for neural machine translation autoregressively generate a single target token per time step, which slows inference especially for long outputs. While architectural advances such as the Transformer fully parallelize the decoder computations at training time, inference still proceeds sequentially. Recent developments in nonand semiautoregressive decoding produce multiple tokens per time step independently of the others, which improves inference speed but deteriorates translation quality. In this work, we propose the syntactically supervised Transformer (SynST), which first autoregressively predicts a chunked parse tree before generating all of the target tokens in one shot conditioned on the predicted parse. A series of controlled experiments demonstrates that SynST decodes sentences ∼ 5× faster than the baseline autoregressive Transformer while achieving higher BLEU scores than most competing methods on En-De and En-Fr datasets.1 Source code to reproduce our results is available at

Systems for story generation are asked to produce plausible and enjoyable stories given an input context. This task is underspecified, as a vast number of diverse stories can originate from a single input. The large output space makes it difficult to build and evaluate story generation models, as (1) existing datasets lack rich enough contexts to meaningfully guide models, and (2) existing evaluations (both crowdsourced and automatic) are unreliable for assessing long-form creative text. To address these issues, we introduce a dataset and evaluation platform built from STORIUM, an online collaborative storytelling community. Our author-generated dataset contains 6K lengthy stories (125M tokens) with fine-grained natural language annotations (e.g., character goals and attributes) interspersed throughout each narrative, forming a robust source for guiding models. We evaluate language models fine-tuned on our dataset by integrating them onto STORIUM, where real authors can query a model for suggested story continuations and then edit them. Automatic metrics computed over these edits correlate well with both user ratings of generated stories and qualitative feedback from semi-structured user interviews. We release both the STORIUM dataset and evaluation platform to spur more principled research into story generation.

Recent text generation research has increasingly focused on open-ended domains such as story and poetry generation. Because models built for such tasks are difficult to evaluate automatically, most researchers in the space justify their modeling choices by collecting crowdsourced human judgments of text quality (e.g., Likert scores of coherence or grammaticality) from Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). In this paper, we first conduct a survey of 45 open-ended text generation papers and find that the vast majority of them fail to report crucial details about their AMT tasks, hindering reproducibility. We then run a series of story evaluation experiments with both AMT workers and English teachers and discover that even with strict qualification filters, AMT workers (unlike teachers) fail to distinguish between model-generated text and human-generated references. We show that AMT worker judgments improve when they are shown model-generated output alongside human-generated references, which enables the workers to better calibrate their ratings. Finally, interviews with the English teachers provide deeper insights into the challenges of the evaluation process, particularly when rating model-generated text.

Systems for story generation are asked to produce plausible and enjoyable stories given an input context. This task is underspecified, as a vast number of diverse stories can originate from a single input. The large output space makes it difficult to build and evaluate story generation models, as (1) existing datasets lack rich enough contexts to meaningfully guide models, and (2) existing evaluations (both crowdsourced and automatic) are unreliable for assessing long-form creative text. To address these issues, we introduce a dataset and evaluation platform built from STORIUM, an online collaborative storytelling community. Our author-generated dataset contains 6K lengthy stories (125M tokens) with fine-grained natural language annotations (e.g., character goals and attributes) interspersed throughout each narrative, forming a robust source for guiding models. We evaluate language models fine-tuned on our dataset by integrating them onto STORIUM, where real authors can query a model for suggested story continuations and then edit them. Automatic metrics computed over these edits correlate well with both user ratings of generated stories and qualitative feedback from semistructured user interviews. We release both the STORIUM dataset and evaluation platform to spur more principled research into story generation.

Recent text generation research has increasingly focused on open-ended domains such as story and poetry generation. Because models built for such tasks are difficult to evaluate automatically, most researchers in the space justify their modeling choices by collecting crowdsourced human judgments of text quality (e.g., Likert scores of coherence or grammaticality) from Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). In this paper, we first conduct a survey of 45 open-ended text generation papers and find that the vast majority of them fail to report crucial details about their AMT tasks, hindering reproducibility. We then run a series of story evaluation experiments with both AMT workers and English teachers and discover that even with strict qualification filters, AMT workers (unlike teachers) fail to distinguish between model-generated text and human-generated references. We show that AMT worker judgments improve when they are shown model-generated output alongside human-generated references, which enables the workers to better calibrate their ratings. Finally, interviews with the English teachers provide deeper insights into the challenges of the evaluation process, particularly when rating model-generated text.