Indigenous language expertise is not encoded in written text in the same way as it is for languages that have a long literal tradition. In many cases it is, on the contrary, mostly conserved orally. Therefore the evaluation of neural MT systems solely based on an algorithm learning from written texts is not adequate to measure the quality of a system that is used by the language community. If extensively using tools based on a big amount of non-native language this can even contribute to language change in a way that is not desired by the language community. It can also pollute the internet with automatically created texts that outweigh native texts. We propose a manual evaluation method focusing on flow and content separately, and additionally we use existing rule-based NLP to evaluate other factors such as spelling, grammar and grammatical richness. Our main conclusion is that language expertise of a native speaker is necessary to properly evaluate a given system. We test the method by manually evaluating two neural MT tools for an indigenous low resource language. We present an experiment on two different neural translations to and from North Sámi, an indigenous language of North Europe.

Human evaluation plays a crucial role in Natural Language Processing (NLP) as it assesses the quality and relevance of developed systems, thereby facilitating their enhancement. However, the absence of widely accepted human evaluation metrics in NLP hampers fair comparisons among different systems and the establishment of universal assessment standards. Through an extensive analysis of existing literature on human evaluation metrics, we identified several gaps in NLP evaluation methodologies. These gaps served as motivation for developing our own hierarchical evaluation framework. The proposed framework offers notable advantages, particularly in providing a more comprehensive representation of the NLP system’s performance. We applied this framework to evaluate the developed Machine Reading Comprehension system, which was utilized within a human-AI symbiosis model. The results highlighted the associations between the quality of inputs and outputs, underscoring the necessity to evaluate both components rather than solely focusing on outputs. In future work, we will investigate the potential time-saving benefits of our proposed framework for evaluators assessing NLP systems.

In both the translation industry and translation education, analytic and systematic assessment of translations plays a vital role. However, due to lack of a scheme for describing differences between translations, such assessment has been realized only in an ad-hoc manner. There is prior work on a scheme for describing differences between translations, but it has coverage and objectivity issues. To alleviate these issues and realize more fine-grained analyses, we developed an improved scheme by referring to diverse types of translations and adopting hierarchical linguistic units for analysis, taking English-to-Japanese translation as an example.

This paper presents an overview of, and the results from, the 2023 Shared Task on Reproducibility of Evaluations in NLP (ReproNLP’23), following on from two previous shared tasks on reproducibility of evaluations in NLG, ReproGen’21 and ReproGen’22. This shared task series forms part of an ongoing research programme designed to develop theory and practice of reproducibility assessment in NLP and machine learning, all against a background of an interest in reproducibility that con- tinues to grow in the two fields. This paper describes the ReproNLP’23 shared task, summarises results from the reproduction studies submitted, and provides comparative analysis of the results.

This paper presents a human evaluation reproduction study regarding the data-to-text generation task. The evaluation focuses in counting the supported and contradicting facts generated by a neural data-to-text model with a macro planning stage. The model is tested generating sport summaries for the ROTOWIRE dataset. We first describe the approach to reproduction that is agreed in the context of the ReproHum project. Then, we detail the entire configuration of the original human evaluation and the adaptations that had to be made to reproduce such an evaluation. Finally, we compare the reproduction results with those reported in the paper that was taken as reference.

Human evaluation is crucial for NLG systems as it provides a reliable assessment of the quality, effectiveness, and utility of generated language outputs. However, concerns about the reproducibility of such evaluations have emerged, casting doubt on the reliability and generalisability of reported results. In this paper, we present the findings of a reproducibility study on a data-to-text system, conducted under two conditions: (1) replicating the original setup as closely as possible with evaluators from AMT, and (2) replicating the original human evaluation but this time, utilising evaluators with a background in academia. Our experiments show that there is a loss of statistical significance between the original and reproduction studies, i.e. the human evaluation results are not reproducible. In addition, we found that employing local participants led to more robust results. We finally discuss lessons learned, addressing the challenges and best practices for ensuring reproducibility in NLG human evaluations.

This paper is part of the larger ReproHum project, where different teams of researchers aim to reproduce published experiments from the NLP literature. Specifically, ReproHum focuses on the reproducibility of human evaluation studies, where participants indicate the quality of different outputs of Natural Language Generation (NLG) systems. This is necessary because without reproduction studies, we do not know how reliable earlier results are. This paper aims to reproduce the second human evaluation study of Puduppully & Lapata (2021), while another lab is attempting to do the same. This experiment uses best-worst scaling to determine the relative performance of different NLG systems. We found that the worst performing system in the original study is now in fact the best performing system across the board. This means that we cannot fully reproduce the original results. We also carry out alternative analyses of the data, and discuss how our results may be combined with the other reproduction study that is carried out in parallel with this paper.

This paper presents a partial reproduction study of Data-to-text Generation with Macro Planning by Puduppully et al. (2021). This work was conducted as part of the ReproHum project, a multi-lab effort to reproduce the results of NLP papers incorporating human evaluations. We follow the same instructions provided by the authors and the ReproHum team to the best of our abilities. We collect preference ratings for the following evaluation criteria in order: conciseness, coherence, and grammaticality. Our results are highly correlated with the original experiment. Nonetheless, we believe the presented results are insufficent to conclude that the Macro system proposed and developed by the original paper is superior compared to other systems. We suspect combining our results with the three other reproductions of this paper through the ReproHum project will paint a clearer picture. Overall, we hope that our work is a step towards a more transparent and reproducible research landscape.

There is a growing concern regarding the reproducibility of human evaluation studies in NLP. As part of the ReproHum campaign, we conducted a study to assess the reproducibility of a recent human evaluation study in NLP. Specifically, we attempted to reproduce a human evaluation of a novel approach to enhance Role-Oriented Dialogue Summarization by considering the influence of role interactions. Despite our best efforts to adhere to the reported setup, we were unable to reproduce the statistical results as presented in the original paper. While no contradictory evidence was found, our study raises questions about the validity of the reported statistical significance results, and/or the comprehensiveness with which the original study was reported. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive account of our reproduction study, detailing the methodologies employed, data collection, and analysis procedures. We discuss the implications of our findings for the broader issue of reproducibility in NLP research. Our findings serve as a cautionary reminder of the challenges in conducting reproducible human evaluations and prompt further discussions within the NLP community.

This paper reports a reproduction study of the human evaluation of role-oriented dialogue summarization models, as part of the ReproNLP Shared Task 2023 on Reproducibility of Evaluations in NLP. We outline the disparities between the original study’s experimental design and our reproduction study, along with the outcomes obtained. The inter-annotator agreement within the reproduction study is observed to be lower, measuring 0.40 as compared to the original study’s 0.48. Among the six conclusions drawn in the original study, four are validated in our reproduction study. We confirm the effectiveness of the proposed approach on the overall metric, albeit with slightly poorer relative performance compared to the original study. Furthermore, we raise an open-ended inquiry: how can subjective practices in the original study be identified and addressed when conducting reproduction studies?

How reliable are human evaluation results? Is it possible to replicate human evaluation? This work takes a closer look at the evaluation of the output of a Text-to-Speech (TTS) system. Unfortunately, our results indicate that human evaluation is not as straightforward to replicate as expected. Additionally, we also present results on reproducing the technical background of the TTS system and discuss potential reasons for the reproduction failure.

This paper describes the reproduction of a human evaluation in Language-Agnostic Meta- Learning for Low-Resource Text-to-Speech with Articulatory Features reported in Lux and Vu (2022). It is a contribution to the ReproNLP 2023 Shared Task on Reproducibility of Evaluations in NLP. The original evaluation assessed the naturalness of audio generated by different Text-to-Speech (TTS) systems for German, and our goal was to repeat the experiment with a different set of evaluators. We reproduced the evaluation based on data and instructions provided by the original authors, with some uncertainty concerning the randomisation of question order. Evaluators were recruited via email to relevant mailing lists and we received 157 responses over the course of three weeks. Our initial results show low reproducibility, but when we assume that the systems of the original and repeat evaluation experiment have been transposed, the reproducibility assessment improves markedly. We do not know if and at what point such a transposition happened; however, an initial analysis of our audio and video files provides some evidence that the system assignment in our repeat experiment is correct.

This work presents our efforts to reproduce the results of the human evaluation experiment presented in the paper of Vamvas and Sennrich (2022), which evaluated an automatic system detecting over- and undertranslations (translations containing more or less information than the original) in machine translation (MT) outputs. Despite the high quality of the documentation and code provided by the authors, we discuss some problems we found in reproducing the exact experimental setup and offer recommendations for improving reproducibility. Our replicated results generally confirm the conclusions of the original study, but in some cases statistically significant differences were observed, suggesting a high variability of human annotation.

This report describes a reproduction of a human evaluation study evaluating automatically detected over- and undertranslations obtained using neural machine translation approaches. While the scope of the original study is much broader, a human evaluation is included as part of its system evaluation. We attempt an exact reproduction of this human evaluation, pertaining to translations on the the English-German language pair. While encountering minor logistical challenges, with all the source material being publicly available and some additional instructions provided by the original authors, we were able to reproduce the original experiment with only minor differences in the results.

We reproduced the human-based evaluation of the continuation of narratives task presented by Chakrabarty et al. (2022). This experiment is performed as part of the ReproNLP Shared Task on Reproducibility of Evaluations in NLP (Track C). Our main goal is to reproduce the original study under conditions as similar as possible. Specifically, we follow the original experimental design and perform human evaluations of the data from the original study, while describing the differences between the two studies. We then present the results of these two studies together with an analysis of similarities between them. Inter-annotator agreement (Krippendorff’s alpha) in the reproduction study is lower than in the original study, while the human evaluation results of both studies have the same trends, that is, our results support the findings in the original study.

We describe in this paper an attempt to reproduce some of the human of evaluation results from the paper “It’s not Rocket Science: Interpreting Figurative Language in Narratives”. In particular, we describe the methodology used to reproduce the chosen human evaluation, the challenges faced, and the results that were gathered. We will also make some recommendations on the learnings obtained from this reproduction attempt and what improvements are needed to enable more robust reproductions of future NLP human evaluations.