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.

It might reasonably be expected that running multiple experiments for the same task using the same data and model would yield very similar results. Recent research has, however, shown this not to be the case for many NLP experiments. In this paper, we report extensive coordinated work by two NLP groups to run the training and testing pipeline for three neural text simplification models under varying experimental conditions, including different random seeds, run-time environments, and dependency versions, yielding a large number of results for each of the three models using the same data and train/dev/test set splits. From one perspective, these results can be interpreted as shedding light on the reproducibility of evaluation results for the three NTS models, and we present an in-depth analysis of the variation observed for different combinations of experimental conditions. From another perspective, the results raise the question of whether the averaged score should be considered the ‘true’ result for each model.

We report our efforts in identifying a set of previous human evaluations in NLP that would be suitable for a coordinated study examining what makes human evaluations in NLP more/less reproducible. We present our results and findings, which include that just 13% of papers had (i) sufficiently low barriers to reproduction, and (ii) enough obtainable information, to be considered for reproduction, and that all but one of the experiments we selected for reproduction was discovered to have flaws that made the meaningfulness of conducting a reproduction questionable. As a result, we had to change our coordinated study design from a reproduce approach to a standardise-then-reproduce-twice approach. Our overall (negative) finding that the great majority of human evaluations in NLP is not repeatable and/or not reproducible and/or too flawed to justify reproduction, paints a dire picture, but presents an opportunity for a rethink about how to design and report human evaluations in NLP.

The availability of source code has been put forward as one of the most critical factors for improving the reproducibility of scientific research. This work studies trends in source code availability at major computational linguistics conferences, namely, ACL, EMNLP, LREC, NAACL, and COLING. We observe positive trends, especially in conferences that actively promote reproducibility. We follow this by conducting a reproducibility study of eight papers published in EMNLP 2021, finding that source code releases leave much to be desired. Moving forward, we suggest all conferences require self-contained artifacts and provide a venue to evaluate such artifacts at the time of publication. Authors can include small-scale experiments and explicit scripts to generate each result to improve the reproducibility of their work.

The reproducibility of NLP research has drawn increased attention over the last few years. Several tools, guidelines, and metrics have been introduced to address concerns in regard to this problem; however, much work still remains to ensure widespread adoption of effective reproducibility standards. In this work, we review the reproducibility of Exploring Neural Text Simplification Models by Nisioi et al. (2017), evaluating it from three main aspects: data, software artifacts, and automatic evaluations. We discuss the challenges and issues we faced during this process. Furthermore, we explore the adequacy of current reproducibility standards. Our code, trained models, and a docker container of the environment used for training and evaluation are made publicly available.