Statistical significance testing is used in natural language processing (NLP) to determine whether the results of a study or experiment are likely to be due to chance or if they reflect a genuine relationship. A key step in significance testing is the estimation of confidence interval which is a function of sample variance. Sample variance calculation is straightforward when evaluating against ground truth. However, in many cases, a metric model is often used for evaluation. For example, to compare toxicity of two large language models, a toxicity classifier is used for evaluation. Existing works usually do not consider the variance change due to metric model errors, which can lead to wrong conclusions. In this work, we establish the mathematical foundation of significance testing for model-based metrics. With experiments on public benchmark datasets and a production system, we show that considering metric model errors to calculate sample variances for model-based metrics changes the conclusions in certain experiments.

Natural language often contains ambiguities that can lead to misinterpretation and miscommunication. While humans can handle ambiguities effectively by asking clarifying questions and/or relying on contextual cues and common-sense knowledge, resolving ambiguities can be notoriously hard for machines. In this work, we study ambiguities that arise in text-to-image generative models. We curate the Text-to-image Ambiguity Benchmark (TAB) dataset to study different types of ambiguities in text-to-image generative models. We then propose the Text-to-ImagE Disambiguation (TIED) framework to disambiguate the prompts given to the text-to-image generative models by soliciting clarifications from the end user. Through automatic and human evaluations, we show the effectiveness of our framework in generating more faithful images aligned with end user intention in the presence of ambiguities.