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.

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.

This paper presents our strategy to address the SemEval-2022 Task 3 PreTENS: Presupposed Taxonomies Evaluating Neural Network Semantics. The goal of the task is to identify if a sentence is deemed acceptable or not, depending on the taxonomic relationship that holds between a noun pair contained in the sentence. For sub-task 1—binary classification—we propose an effective way to enhance the robustness and the generalizability of language models for better classification on this downstream task. We design a two-stage fine-tuning procedure on the ELECTRA language model using data augmentation techniques. Rigorous experiments are carried out using multi-task learning and data-enriched fine-tuning. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed model, UU-Tax, is indeed able to generalize well for our downstream task. For sub-task 2 —regression—we propose a simple classifier that trains on features obtained from Universal Sentence Encoder (USE). In addition to describing the submitted systems, we discuss other experiments that employ pre-trained language models and data augmentation techniques. For both sub-tasks, we perform error analysis to further understand the behaviour of the proposed models. We achieved a global F1Binary score of 91.25% in sub-task 1 and a rho score of 0.221 in sub-task 2.