Using a Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate an NLG
System
Ehud Reitera0 Roma Robertsona1 A Scott Lennoxa1 Liesl Osman a2
Departments of Computing Sciencea0 , General Practicea1 , and Medicine and Therapeutics a2
University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
a3 e.reiter, roma.robertson, s.lennox, l.osman
a4 @abdn.ac.uk
Abstract
The STOP system, which generates
personalised smoking-cessation letters,
was evaluated by a randomised con-
trolled clinical trial. We believe this is
the largest and perhaps most rigorous
task effectiveness evaluation ever per-
formed on an NLG system. The de-
tailed results of the clinical trial have
been presented elsewhere, in the med-
ical literature. In this paper we discuss
the clinical trial itself: its structure and
cost, what we did and did not learn from
it (especially considering that the trial
showed that STOP was not effective),
and how it compares to other NLG eval-
uation techniques.
1 Introduction
There is increasing interest in techniques for eval-
uating Natural Language Generation (NLG) sys-
tems. However, we are not aware of any previ-
ously reported evaluations of NLG systems which
have rigorously compared the task effectiveness
of an NLG system to a non-NLG alternative. In
this paper we discuss such an evaluation, a large
scale (2553 subjects) randomised controlled clin-
ical trial which evaluated the effectiveness of per-
sonalised smoking-cessation letters generated by
the STOP system (Reiter et al., 1999). We be-
lieve that this is the largest, most expensive, and
perhaps most rigorous evaluation ever done of an
NLG system; it was also a disappointing evalua-
tion, as it showed that STOP letters in general were
no more effective than control letters.
The detailed results of the STOP evaluation
have been presented elsewhere, in the medical lit-
erature (Lennox et al., 2001). The purpose of this
paper is to discuss the clinical trial from an NLG
evaluation perspective, in order to help future re-
searchers decide when a clinical trial (or similar
large-scale task effectiveness evaluation) would
be an appropriate way to evaluate their systems.
2 Evaluation of NLG Systems
Evaluation is becoming increasingly important in
NLG, as in other areas of NLP; see Mellish and
Dale (1998) for a summary of NLG evaluation.
As Mellish and Dale point out, we can evalu-
ate the effectiveness of underlying theories, gen-
eral properties of NLG systems and texts (such as
computational speed, or text understandability),
or the effectiveness of the generated texts in an
actual task or application context. Theory eval-
uations are typically done by comparing predic-
tions of a theory to what is observed in a human-
authored corpus (for example, (Yeh and Mellish,
1997)). Evaluations of text properties are typi-
cally done by asking human judges to rate the
quality of generated texts (for example, (Lester
and Porter, 1997)); sometimes human-authored
texts are included in the rated set (without judges
knowing which texts are human-authored) to pro-
vide a baseline. Task evaluations (for example,
(Young, 1999)) are typically done by showing hu-
man subjects different texts, and measuring dif-
ferences in an outcome variable, such as success
in performing a task.
However, despite the above work, we are not
aware of any previous evaluation which has com-
pared the effectiveness of NLG texts at meeting
a communicative goal against the effectiveness
of non-NLG control texts. Young's task eval-
uation, which may be the most rigorous previ-
ous task evaluation of an NLG system, compared
the effectiveness of texts generated by different
NLG algorithms, while the IDAS task evaluation
(Levine and Mellish, 1995) did not include a con-
trol text of any kind. Coch (1996) and Lester and
Porter (1997) have compared NLG texts to human-
written and (in Coch's case) mail-merge texts, but
the comparisons were judgements by human do-
main experts, they did not measure the actual im-
pact of the texts on users. Carenini and Moore
(2000) probably came closest to a controlled eval-
uation of NLG vs non-NLG alternatives, because
they compared the impact of NLG argumentative
texts to a no-text control (where users had access
to the underlying data but were not given any texts
arguing for a particular choice).
Task evaluations that compare the effectiveness
of texts from NLG systems to the effectiveness of
non-NLG alternatives (mail-merge texts, human-
written texts, or fixed texts) are expensive and
difficult to organise, but we believe they are es-
sential to the progress of NLG, both scientifically
and technologically. In this paper we describe
such an evaluation which we performed on the
STOP system. The evaluation was indeed expen-
sive and time-consuming, and ultimately was dis-
appointing in that it suggested STOP texts were no
more effective than control texts, but we believe
that this kind of evaluation was essential to the
project. We hope that our description of the STOP
clinical trial and what we learned from it will en-
courage other researchers to consider performing
effectiveness evaluations of NLG systems against
non-NLG alternatives.
3 STOP and its Clinical Trial
The STOP system has been described elsewhere
(Reiter et al., 1999). Very briefly, the system took
as input a 4-page questionnaire about smoking
history, habits, intentions, and so forth, and from
this produced a small (4 pages of A5) person-
alised smoking cessation letter. All interactions
with the smoker were paper-based; he or she filled
out a paper questionnaire which was scanned into
the computer system, and the resultant letter was
printed out and posted back to the smoker. The
first page of a typical questionnaire is shown in
Figure 1, and part of the letter produced from this
questionnaire is shown in Figure 2.1 We wish to
emphasise that producing personalised health in-
formation letters is not a new idea, many previous
researchers have worked in this area; see Lennox
et al (2001) for a comparison of STOP to previous
work in this area.
The STOP clinical trial, which is the focus of
this paper, was organised as follows. We con-
tacted 7427 smokers, and asked them to partici-
pate in the trial. 2553 smokers agreed to partic-
ipate, and filled out our smoking questionnaire.
These smokers were randomly split among three
groups:
a0 Tailored. These smokers received the letter
generated by STOP from their questionnaire.
a0 Non-tailored. These smokers received a
fixed (non-tailored) letter. The non-tailored
letter was essentially the letter produced by
STOP from a blank questionnaire, with some
manual post-editing and tidying up. In other
words, during the course of developing STOP
we created a set of default rules for han-
dling incomplete or inconsistent question-
naires; the non-tailored letter was produced
by activating these default rules without any
smoker data. Part of the non-tailored letter is
shown in Figure 3.
a0 No-letter. These smokers just received a let-
ter thanking them for participating in our
study.
After six months we sent a followup question-
naire asking participants if they had quit, and also
other questions (for example, if they were intend-
ing to try to quit even if they had not actually done
so yet). Smokers could also make free-text com-
ments about the letter they received. 2045 smok-
ers responded to the followup questionnaire, of
which 154 claimed to have quit. Because people
do not always tell the truth about their smoking
habits, we asked these 154 people to give saliva
samples, which were tested in a lab for nicotine
residues. 99 smokers agreed to give such samples,
and 89 of these were confirmed as non-smokers.
1To protect patient confidentiality, we have changed the
name of the smoker and her medical practice, and typed her
handwritten responses.
1
S
M
O
K
I
N
G Q
U
ES
T
I
O
NN
A
I
R
E
P
l
ea
s
e a
n
s
w
e
r 
b
y 
m
a
r
k
i
n
g 
t
h
e 
m
o
s
t 
a
pp
r
op
r
i
a
t
e 
box 
f
o
r 
eac
h qu
e
s
ti
on 
li
k
e 
t
h
i
s
:  
_
Q
1 
H
av
e 
yo
u 
s
m
o
k
e
d 
a 
c
i
ga
re
tt
e 
i
n 
t
h
e 
l
a
s
t 
w
ee
k
, 
e
v
e
n 
a 
pu
ff
?
Y
E
S
_
NO
 
P
l
ea
s
e c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e 
t
h
e 
f
o
ll
o
w
i
n
g 
qu
e
s
ti
on
s
P
l
ea
s
e 
r
e
t
u
r
n 
t
h
e 
qu
e
s
ti
onn
a
i
r
e 
un
a
n
s
w
e
r
e
d 
i
n 
t
h
e
e
n
v
e
l
op
e 
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d. 
T
h
a
n
k y
ou.
P
l
e
a
s
e re
a
d 
t
h
e 
qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s 
c
a
re
f
u
ll
y.
     
I
f 
y
ou 
a
r
e 
no
t 
s
u
r
e 
ho
w 
t
o 
a
n
s
w
e
r
, 
j
u
s
t 
g
i
v
e 
t
h
e 
b
e
s
t 
a
n
s
w
e
r 
y
ou 
ca
n.
Q
2
H
o
m
e 
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
:
L
i
v
e
a
l
on
e
_
L
i
v
e 
w
it
h
hu
s
b
a
nd
/
w
i
f
e
/
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
 
L
i
v
e 
w
it
h
o
t
h
e
r 
a
du
lt
s
 
L
i
v
e 
w
it
h
c
h
il
d
r
e
n
 
Q
3    
N
u
m
b
er 
o
f 
c
h
il
d
re
n
 und
e
r 
16 
li
v
i
n
g 
a
t 
ho
m
e        
………
0
……… bo
y
s    
………
0
……. 
g
i
r
l
s
Q
4
D
o
e
s 
a
n
yo
n
e e
l
s
e 
i
n 
yo
u
r 
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d 
s
m
o
k
e
?
    
(
I
f 
s
o, p
l
e
a
s
e 
m
a
r
k 
a
ll 
bo
xe
s 
w
h
i
c
h app
l
y
)
hu
s
b
a
nd
/
w
i
f
e
/
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
 
o
t
h
e
r f
a
mil
y 
m
e
m
b
e
r
 
o
t
h
e
r
s
 
Q
5
    
H
o
w 
l
o
n
g 
h
av
e 
yo
u 
s
m
o
k
e
d 
f
o
r
?
   …
20
… 
y
ea
r
s
      
T
i
c
k h
e
r
e 
i
f 
y
ou h
a
v
e 
s
m
ok
e
d 
f
o
r 
l
e
ss 
t
h
a
n 
a 
y
ea
r       
 
Q
6    
H
o
w 
m
a
n
y 
c
i
ga
re
tt
e
s 
d
o yo
u 
s
m
o
k
e 
i
n 
a 
d
ay?  
(
P
l
e
a
s
e 
m
a
r
k 
t
h
e 
a
m
oun
t 
b
e
l
o
w
)
L
e
ss 
t
h
a
n 5 
 
5 - 10  
 
11 - 15  
_
16 - 20  
 
21 
- 
30  
 
31 o
r 
m
o
r
e
 
 
Q
7
     
H
o
w 
s
oo
n 
a
f
t
er 
yo
u 
w
a
k
e 
up d
o yo
u 
s
m
o
k
e 
yo
u
r 
f
i
r
s
t 
c
i
ga
re
tt
e
? 
(
P
l
e
a
s
e 
m
a
r
k 
t
h
e 
ti
m
e 
b
e
l
o
w
)
W
it
h
i
n 5 
mi
nu
t
e
s  
 
6 
- 
30 
mi
nu
t
e
s  
_
31 
- 
60 
mi
nu
t
e
s  
 
A
f
t
e
r 
60 
mi
nu
t
e
s  
 
Q
8    
D
o yo
u 
f
i
nd 
i
t 
d
i
ff
i
c
u
l
t 
n
o
t t
o 
s
m
o
k
e 
i
n p
l
a
ce
s 
w
h
ere 
i
t 
i
s
f
o
r
b
i
dd
e
n   
e
g 
i
n 
c
hu
rc
h
, a
t t
h
e 
li
b
r
a
r
y, 
i
n 
t
h
e c
i
n
e
m
a?
Y
E
S
 
_
  
NO
 
 
Q
9    
W
h
i
c
h 
c
i
ga
re
tt
e 
w
o
u
l
d 
yo
u h
a
t
e 
m
o
s
t t
o g
i
v
e 
up
?
T
h
e 
f
i
r
s
t 
on
e 
i
n 
t
h
e 
m
o
r
n
i
n
g 
_
A
n
y 
o
f 
t
h
e 
o
t
h
e
r
s    
 
Q
10    
D
o yo
u 
s
m
o
k
e 
m
o
re 
f
re
qu
e
n
t
l
y 
du
r
i
n
g 
t
h
e 
f
i
r
s
t 
h
o
u
r
s 
a
f
t
er
w
a
k
i
n
g 
t
h
a
n du
r
i
n
g 
t
h
e re
s
t 
o
f 
t
h
e 
d
ay?
Y
E
S
 
 
  
NO
_
 
Q
11   
D
o yo
u 
s
m
o
k
e 
i
f 
yo
u 
a
re 
s
o 
ill 
t
h
a
t 
yo
u 
a
re 
i
n b
e
d 
m
o
s
t 
o
f 
t
h
e
d
ay?
Y
E
S
 
 
  
NO
_
 
Y
E
S
 
Q
13
  
I
f 
y
e
s
, 
a
re 
yo
u 
i
n
t
e
nd
i
n
g 
t
o 
s
t
o
p 
s
m
o
k
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
i
n 
t
h
e 
n
e
x
t 
m
o
n
t
h
?
                          
Y
E
S
 
 
  
NO
 
 
Q
12
A
re 
yo
u 
i
n
t
e
nd
i
n
g 
t
o 
s
t
o
p
s
m
o
k
i
n
g 
i
n 
t
h
e 
n
e
x
t 
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
?
NO     
_
 
Q
14
  
I
f 
n
o
, 
w
o
u
l
d 
yo
u 
li
k
e 
t
o 
s
t
o
p 
s
m
o
k
i
n
g 
i
f 
i
t 
w
a
s
e
a
s
y?
Y
E
S
 
 
   
N
o
t 
S
u
r
e   
_
 
 
 
NO
 
 
Figure 1: First page of a STOP questionnaire
3.1 Practical Aspects of the Clinical Trial
The STOP clinical trial took 20 months to run
(of which the first 4 months overlapped soft-
ware development), and cost about UK£75,000
(US$110,000). We believe the STOP clinical trial
was the longest and costliest evaluation ever done
of an NLG system. The length and cost of the clin-
ical trial were primarily due to the large numbers
of subjects. Whereas Levine and Mellish (1995),
Young (1999), and Carenini and Moore (2000) in-
cluded 10, 26, and 30 subjects (respectively) in
their task effectiveness evaluations, we had 2553
subjects in our clinical trial. The cost of the trial
was partially stationary and postage (we sent out
over 10000 mailings to smokers, each of which
included a reply-paid envelope), but mostly staff
costs to set up the trial, perform the mailings, pro-
cess and analyse the returns from smokers, and
handle various glitches in the trial.
Another way of looking at the trial was that we
spent about UK£30 (US$45) per subject (includ-
ing staff time as well as materials). Perhaps the
trial could have been done a bit more cheaply, but
any experiment involving 2553 subjects is bound
to be expensive and time-consuming.
The reason the trial needed to be so large was
that we were measuring a binary outcome vari-
able (laboratory-verified smoking cessation) with
a very low positive rate (since smoking is a very
difficult habit to quit). Young, in contrast, mea-
sured numerical variables (such as the number of
mistakes made by a user when following textual
instructions) with substantial standard deviations.
Another complication was that we wanted to
use a representative sample of smokers in our
trial, which meant that we could not (as Young
and Levine and Mellish did) just recruit students
and acquaintances. Instead, we contacted a repre-
sentative set of GPs in our area, and asked them
for a list of smokers from their patient record sys-
tems. This was the source of the 7427 initial
smokers mentioned above.
4 Results of the Clinical Trial
Detailed results of the STOP clinical trial, includ-
ing statistical tables, have been published in the
medical literature (Lennox et al., 2001). Here we
just summarise the key findings which are of NLG
Smoking Information for Heather Stewart
You have good reasons to stop...
People stop smoking when they really want to stop.  It is encouraging that
you have many good reasons for stopping.  The scales show the good
and bad things about smoking for you.  They are tipped in your favour.
You could do it...
Most people who really want to stop eventually succeed.  In fact, 10
million people in Britain have stopped smoking - and stayed stopped - in
the last 15 years.  Many of them found it much easier than they expected.
Although you don't feel confident that you would be able to stop if you
were to try, you have several things in your favour.
• You have stopped before for more than a month.
• You have good reasons for stopping smoking.
• You expect support from your family, your friends, and your
workmates.
We know that all of these make it more likely that you will be able to stop.
Most people who stop smoking for good have more than one attempt.
Overcoming your barriers to stopping...
You said in your questionnaire that you might find it difficult to stop
because smoking helps you cope with stress.  Many people think that
cigarettes help them cope with stress.  However, taking a cigarette only
makes you feel better for a short while.  Most ex-smokers feel calmer and
more in control than they did when they were smoking.  There are some
ideas about coping with stress on the back page of this leaflet.
You also said that you might find it difficult to stop because you would put
on weight.  A few people do put on some weight.  If you did stop smoking,
your appetite would improve and you would taste your food much better.
Because of this it would be wise to plan in advance so that you're not
reaching for the biscuit tin all the time.  Remember that putting on weight
is an overeating problem, not a no-smoking one.  You can tackle it later
with diet and exercise.
And finally...
We hope this letter will help you feel more confident about giving up
cigarettes.  If you have a go, you have a real chance of succeeding.
With best wishes,
The Health Centre.
THINGS YOU LIKE
it's relaxing
it stops stress
you enjoy it
it relieves boredom
it stops weight gain
it stops you craving
THINGS YOU DISLIKE
it makes you less fit
it's a bad example for kids
you're addicted
it's unpleasant for others
other people disapprove
it's a smelly habit
it's bad for you
it's expensive
it's bad for others' health
Figure 2: Inside pages of the STOP letter generated from the Figure 1 questionnaire
Information for Stopping Smoking
Do you want to stop smoking?
Everyone has things they like and dislike about their smoking.  The
decision to stop smoking depends on the things you don't like being more
important than the things you do like.  It can be useful to think of it as a
balance.  Have a look on the scales.  What are the good and bad things
for you?
Add any more that you can think of.  Are you ready to stop smoking?  If
yes, maybe it's the right time to have a go.  If no, think about the good and
bad things about smoking.  This might swing the balance for you.
You can do it.....
People who want to stop smoking usually succeed.  10 million people in
Britain have stopped smoking - and stayed stopped - in the last 15 years.
Many of them found it much easier than they expected!
Try it out.....
If you don't feel ready for an all-out attempt to stop smoking, there are
some useful ways to prepare yourself.  You could try some of the
following ideas now.  This will help you when you try to stop smoking.
• Delay your first cigarette of the day by half an hour.
• Stop smoking for 24 hours.
• Cut down the number you smoke by 5 cigarettes per day.
Planning will help.....
When you stop, it helps to plan ahead.  Here are some things that have
worked for others:
• Pick a day to stop, and let your family and friends know.
• Think of situations where you might feel tempted to smoke, and plan
how you could avoid or deal with them.
• Get rid of all cigarettes and ashtrays the day before.
• When you do stop, take one day at a time; don't look too far ahead.
If it gets tough.....
Many people do hit rough patches; there are ways to deal with these.  On
the back page are some suggestions that other people have found useful.
If you do have a cigarette after a few days just put it behind you and keep
on trying.  Prepare yourself for another attempt, many people have more
than one go before they stop for good!
With best wishes.
The Health Centre.
GOOD THINGS
you enjoy it
it's relaxing
it stops stress
it breaks up the day
it relieves boredom
it's sociable
it stops weight gain
it stops you craving
BAD THINGS
it's bad for you
it makes you less fit
it's expensive
it's a bad example for kids
it's bad for others' health
you're addicted
it's unpleasant for others
other people disapprove
it's a smelly habit
Figure 3: Inside pages of the non-tailored letter
(as well as medical) interest.
Of the 2553 smokers in the trial, 89 were val-
idated as having stopped smoking. These broke
down by group as follows:
a0 3.5% (30 out of 857) of the tailored group
stopped smoking
a0 4.4% (37 out of 846) of the non-tailored
group stopped smoking
a0 2.6% (22 out of 850) of the no-letter group
stopped smoking
The non-tailored group had the lowest number of
heavy (more than 20 cigarettes per day) smok-
ers, who are less likely to stop smoking (because
they are probably addicted to nicotine) than light
smokers; the tailored group had the highest num-
ber of heavy smokers. After adjusting for this
fact, cessation rates were still higher in the non-
tailored group than in the tailored group, but this
difference was not statistically significant. We
can see this if we look just at cessation rates in
light smokers (few heavy smokers from any cate-
gory managed to stop smoking):
a0 4.3% (25 out of 563) of the light smokers in
the tailored group stopped smoking
a0 4.9% (31 out of 597) of the light smokers in
the non-tailored group stopped smoking
a0 2.7% (16 out of 582) of the light smokers in
the no-letter group stopped smoking
The overall conclusion is therefore that recipi-
ents of the non-tailored letters were more likely to
stop than people who got no letter2 (p=.047 over-
all unadjusted; p=.069 overall after adjusting for
differences between groups, such as heavy/light
smoker split; p=.049 for light smokers). How-
ever, there was no evidence that the tailored let-
ters were any better than the non-tailored ones in
terms of increasing cessation rates.
2Note that while a 1% or 2% increase in cessation rates
is small, it is medically useful if it can be achieved cheaply.
See Law and Tang (1995) for a discussion of success rates
and cost-effectiveness of various smoking-cessation tech-
niques, and Lennox et al (2001) for an analysis that shows
that sending letters is very cost-effective compared to most
other smoking-cessation techniques.
There is some very weak evidence that the tai-
lored letter may have been better than the non-
tailored letter among smokers for whom quitting
was especially difficult. For example, among dis-
couraged smokers (people who wanted to quit
but were not intending to quit, usually because
they didn't think they could quit), cessation rates
were 60% higher among recipients of tailored let-
ters than recipients of non-tailored letters, but the
numbers were too small to reach statistical signif-
icance, since (as with heavy smokers) very few
such people managed to stop smoking. Further-
more, among heavy smokers, recipients of the tai-
lored letter were 50% more likely than recipients
of the non-tailored letters to show increased inten-
tion to quit (for example, say in their initial ques-
tionnaire that they did not intend to quit, but say
in the followup questionnaire that they did intend
to quit) (p=.059). It would be nice to test the hy-
pothesis that tailored letters were effective among
discouraged smokers or heavy smokers by run-
ning another clinical trial, but such a trial would
need to be even bigger and more expensive than
the STOP trial, in order to have enough validated
quitters from these categories to make it possible
to draw statistically significant conclusions.
Recipients of the tailored letters were more
likely than recipients of non-tailored letters to re-
member receiving the letter (67% vs 44%, signif-
icant at p a0 .01), to have kept the letter (30% vs
19%, significant at p a0 .01), and to make a free-
text comment about the letter (20% vs 12%, sig-
nificant at p a0 .01). However, there was no statis-
tically significant difference in perceptions of the
usefulness and relevance of the tailored and non-
tailored letters.
Free-text comments on the tailored letters were
varied, ranging from I carried mine with me all
the time and looked at it whenever I felt like
giving in to I found it patronising . . . Smoking
obviously impairs my physical health — not
my intelligence! The most common complaint
about content was that not enough information
was given about practical ‘how-to-stop-smoking'
techniques. STOP's tailoring rules only included
such information in about one third of the letters;
this was in accordance with the well-established
Stages of Change model of smoking cessation
(Prochaska and diClemente, 1992). Note that all
recipients of the non-tailored letter received such
information. If practical advice was useful to
more than one third of smokers, then the Stages-
of-Change based tailoring rules which decided
when to include such information may have de-
creased rather than increased letter effectiveness.
5 What Can be Learned from a Negative
Result
One of the remarkable things about the NLG,
NLP, and indeed AI literatures is that little men-
tion is made of experiments with negative results.
In more established fields such as medicine and
physics, papers which report negative experimen-
tal findings are common and are valued; but in
NLP they are rare. It seems unlikely that NLP ex-
periments always produce positive results (unless
the experiments are badly designed and biased to-
wards demonstrating the experimenter's desired
outcome); what is probably happening is that peo-
ple are choosing not to report negative results.
One reason for this may be that it can be diffi-
cult to draw clear lessons from a negative result.
In the case of STOP, for example, the clinical trial
did not tell us why STOP failed. There are many
possible reasons for the negative result, including:
1. Tailoring cannot have much effect. That is, if
a smoker receives a letter from his/her doctor
about smoking, then the content of the let-
ter is only of secondary importance, the im-
portant thing is the fact of having received a
communication from his/her doctor encour-
aging smoking cessation.
2. Tailoring could have an impact, but only if it
was based on much more knowledge about
the smoker's circumstances than is available
via a 4-page multiple choice questionnaire.
3. Tailoring based on a multiple-choice ques-
tionnaire can work, we just didn't do it right
in STOP, perhaps in part because we based
our system on inappropriate theoretical mod-
els of smoking cessation.
4. The STOP letters did in fact have an effect
on some groups (such as heavy or discour-
aged smokers), but the clinical trial was too
small to provide statistically significant evi-
dence of this.
In other words, did we fail because (1) what we
were attempting could not work; (2) what we
were attempting could only work if we had a lot
more knowledge available to us; or (3) we built
a poor system? Or (4) did the system actually
work to some degree, but the evaluation didn't
show this because it was too small? This is a key
question for NLG researchers and developers (as
opposed to doctors and health administrators who
just want to know if they should use STOP as a
black-box system), but the clinical trial does not
distinguish between these possibilities.
Arguments can be made for all three of the
above possibilities. For example, we could argue
for (1) on the basis that brief discussions about
smoking with a doctor have about a 2% success
rate (Law and Tang, 1995), and this may be an up-
per limit for the effectiveness of a brief letter from
a doctor. If so, then letters cannot do much better
that the 1.8% increase in cessation rates produced
by the STOP non-tailored letter. Or we could ar-
gue for (2) by noting that when we asked smok-
ers to comment on STOP letters in a small pilot
study, many of their comments were very specific
to their particular circumstances For example, a
single mother mentioned that a previous attempt
to stop failed because of stress caused by dealing
with a child's tantrum, and an older woman dis-
cussed the various stop-smoking techniques she
had tried in the past and how they failed. Per-
haps tailoring according to such specific circum-
stances would add value to letters; but such tai-
loring would require much more information than
can be obtained from a 4-page multiple-choice
questionnaire. We could also argue for (3) be-
cause there clearly are many ways in which the
tailored letters could have been improved (such
as having practical ‘how-to-stop' tips in more let-
ters, as mentioned at the end of Section 4); and
for (4) on the basis of the weak evidence for this
mentioned in Section 4.
We do not know which of the above reason(s)
were responsible for STOP's failure, so we can-
not give clear lessons for future researchers or de-
velopers. This is perhaps true of many negative
experimental results, and may be a reason why
people do not publish them in the NLP commu-
nity. Again there is perhaps a different attitude
in the medical community, where papers describ-
ing experiments are taken as ‘data points' and
more theoretically minded researchers may look
at a number of experimental papers and see what
patterns and insights emerge from the collection
as a whole. Under this perspective it is less im-
portant to state what lessons or insights can be
drawn from a particular negative result, what mat-
ters is the overall pattern of positive and negative
results in a group of related experiments. And
like most such procedures, the process of infer-
ring general rules from a collection of specific ex-
perimental results will work much better if it has
access to both positive and negative examples; in
other words, if researchers publish their failures
as well as their successes.
We believe that negative results are also impor-
tant in NLG, NLP, and AI, even if it is not possible
to draw straightforward lessons from them; and
we hope that more such results are reported in the
future.
6 Other Evaluation Techniques in STOP
The clinical trial was by far the biggest evaluation
exercise in STOP, but we also performed some
smaller evaluations in order to test our algorithms
and knowledge acquisition methodology (Reiter,
2000; Reiter et al., 2000). These included:
1. Asking smokers or domain experts to read
two letters, and state which one they thought
was superior;
2. Statistical analyses of characteristics of
smokers; and
3. Comparing the effectiveness of different al-
gorithms at filling up but not exceeding 4 A5
pages.
These evaluations were much smaller, simpler,
and cheaper than the clinical trial, and often
gave easier to interpret results. For example,
the letter-comparison experiments suggested (al-
though they did not prove) that older people pre-
ferred a more formal writing style than younger
people; the statistical analysis suggested (al-
though again did not prove) that the tailoring rules
should have been more influenced by level of ad-
diction; and the algorithmic analysis showed that
a revision architecture outperformed a conven-
tional pipeline architecture.
So, these experiments produced clearer results
at a fraction of the cost of the clinical trial. But
the cheapness of (1) and (2) were partially due to
the fact that they were too small to produce sta-
tistically solid findings, and the cheapness of (2)
and (3) were partially due to the fact that they ex-
ploited data sets and resources that were built as
part of the clinical trial. Overall, we believe that
these small-scale experiments were worth doing,
but as a supplement to, not a replacement for, the
clinical trial.
7 When is a Clinical Trial Appropriate?
When is it appropriate to evaluate an NLG system
with a large-scale task or effectiveness evaluation
which compares the NLG system to a non-NLG al-
ternative? Certainly this should be done when a
customer is seriously considering using the sys-
tem, indeed customers may refuse to use a system
without such testing.
Controlled task/effectiveness evaluations are
also scientifically important, because they provide
a technique for testing applied hypotheses (such
as ‘STOP produces effective smoking-cessation
letters'). As such, they should be considered
whenever a researcher is interested in testing such
hypotheses. Of course, much research in NLG
is primarily theoretical, and thus perhaps best
tested by corpus studies or psycholinguistic ex-
periments; and much work in applied NLG is con-
cerned with pilot studies and other hypothesis for-
mation exercises. But at the end of the day, re-
searchers interested in applied NLG need to test as
well as formulate hypotheses. While many speech
recognition and natural-language understanding
applications can be tested by comparing their out-
put to a human-produced ‘gold standard' (for ex-
ample, speech recogniser output can be compared
to a human transcription of a speech signal), this
to date has been harder to do in NLG, especially in
applications such as STOP where there are no hu-
man experts (Reiter et al., 2000) (there are many
experts on personalised oral communication with
smokers, but none on personalised written com-
munication, because no one currently writes per-
sonalised letters to smokers). In such applica-
tions, the only way to test hypotheses about the
effects of systems on human users may be to run
a controlled task/effectiveness evaluation.
In other words, there's probably no point in
conducting a large-scale task/effectiveness evalu-
ation of an NLG system if you're interested in for-
mulating hypotheses instead of testing them, or if
you're interested in theoretical instead of applied
hypotheses. But if you want to test an applied hy-
pothesis about the effect of an NLG system on hu-
man users, the most rigorous way of doing this is
to conduct an experiment where you show some
users your NLG texts and other users control texts,
and measure the degree to which the desired ef-
fect is achieved in both groups.
Large-scale evaluation exercises also have the
benefit of forcing researchers and developers to
make systems robust, and to face up to the messi-
ness of real data, such as awkward boundary cases
and noisy data. Indeed we suspect that STOP is
one of the most robust non-commercial NLG sys-
tems ever built, because the clinical trial forced us
to think about issues such as what we should do
with inconsistent or improperly scanned question-
naires, or what we should say to unusual smokers.
In conclusion, large-scale task/effectiveness
evaluations are expensive, time-consuming, and a
considerable hassle. But they are also an essential
part of the scientific and technological process,
especially in testing applied hypotheses about the
effectiveness of systems on real users. We hope
that more such evaluations are performed in the
future, and that their results are reported whether
they are positive or negative.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the rest of the STOP team, and
especially to Ian McCann and Annette Hermse
for their work in the clinical trial. Thanks also
to Yaji Sripada, Sandra Williams, and the anony-
mous reviewers for their comments on drafts
of this paper. This research was supported by
the Scottish Office Department of Health under
grant K/OPR/2/2/D318, and the Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council under grant
GR/L48812.

References

Guiseppe Carenini and Johanna Moore. 2000. An empirical study of the influence of argument conciseness on argument effectiveness. In Proceedings of
ACL-2000.

Jose Coch. 1996. Evaluating and comparing three text
production techniques. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Computational
Linguistics (COLING-1996).

Malcolm Law and Jin Tang. 1995. An analysis of the
effectiveness of interventions intended to help peo-
ple stop smoking. Archives of Internal Medicine,
155:1933-1941.

A Scott Lennox, Liesl Osman, Ehud Reiter, Roma
Robertson, James Friend, Ian McCann, Diane
Skatun, and Peter Donnan. 2001. The cost-
effectiveness of computer-tailored and non-tailored
smoking cessation letters in general practice: A ran-
domised controlled study. British Medical Journal.
In press.

James Lester and Bruce Porter. 1997. Developing and
empirically evaluating robust explanation generators: The KNIGHT experiments. Computational
Linguistics, 23(1):65-101.

John Levine and Chris Mellish. 1995. The IDAS user
trials: Quantitative evaluation of an applied natural language generation system. In Proceedings of
the Fifth European Workshop on Natural Language
Generation, pages 75-93, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Chris Mellish and Robert Dale. 1998. Evaluation in
the context of natural language generation. Com-
puter Speech and Language, 12:349-373.

James Prochaska and Carlo diClemente. 1992. Stages
of Change in the Modification of Problem Behav-
iors. Sage.

Ehud Reiter. 2000. Pipelines and size constraints.
Computational Linguistics, 26(2):251-259.

Ehud Reiter, Roma Robertson, and Liesl Osman.
1999. Types of knowledge required to personalise smoking cessation letters. In Werner Horn
et al., editors, Artificial Intelligence and Medicine:
Proceedings of AIMDM-1999, pages 389-399.
Springer-Verlag.

Ehud Reiter, Roma Robertson, and Liesl Osman.
2000. Knowledge acquisition for natural language
generation. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Natural Language Generation, pages 217-215.

Ching-Long Yeh and Chris Mellish. 1997. An empirical study on the generation of anaphora in chinese.
Computational Linguistics, 23(1):169-190.

Michael Young. 1999. Using Grice's maxim of quantity to select the content of plan descriptions. Artificial Intelligence, 115:215-256.
