REVIEW 2 cited by
GENIE: Toward Reproducible and Standardized Human Evaluation for Text Generation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
While often assumed a gold standard, effective human evaluation of text generation remains an important, open area for research. We revisit this problem with a focus on producing consistent evaluations that are reproducible -- over time and across different populations. We study this goal in different stages of the human evaluation pipeline. In particular, we consider design choices for the annotation interface used to elicit human judgments and their impact on reproducibility. Furthermore, we develop an automated mechanism for maintaining annotator quality via a probabilistic model that detects and excludes noisy annotators. Putting these lessons together, we introduce GENIE: a system for running standardized human evaluations across different generation tasks. We instantiate GENIE with datasets representing four core challenges in text generation: machine translation, summarization, commonsense reasoning, and machine comprehension. For each task, GENIE offers a leaderboard that automatically crowdsources annotations for submissions, evaluating them along axes such as correctness, conciseness, and fluency. We have made the GENIE leaderboards publicly available, and have already ranked 50 submissions from 10 different research groups. We hope GENIE encourages further progress toward effective, standardized evaluations for text generation.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Evaluating the Evaluators: Are readability metrics good measures of readability?
Classic readability formulas correlate weakly with human readability judgments for plain-language summaries (FKGL r=0.16), the best LLM judge reaches r=0.56, and the two evaluator families rank datasets nearly opposite.
-
Min-p, Max Exaggeration: A Critical Analysis of Min-p Sampling in Language Models
A comprehensive reanalysis finds that min-p sampling does not outperform top-p, top-k, or basic sampling once the original data are re-tested and hyperparameter budgets are equalized.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.