REVIEW 1 cited by
RankME: Reliable Human Ratings for Natural Language 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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Human evaluation for natural language generation (NLG) often suffers from inconsistent user ratings. While previous research tends to attribute this problem to individual user preferences, we show that the quality of human judgements can also be improved by experimental design. We present a novel rank-based magnitude estimation method (RankME), which combines the use of continuous scales and relative assessments. We show that RankME significantly improves the reliability and consistency of human ratings compared to traditional evaluation methods. In addition, we show that it is possible to evaluate NLG systems according to multiple, distinct criteria, which is important for error analysis. Finally, we demonstrate that RankME, in combination with Bayesian estimation of system quality, is a cost-effective alternative for ranking multiple NLG systems.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Thoughtful, Confused, or Untrustworthy: How Text Presentation Influences Perceptions of AI Writing Tools
An n=297 online experiment found that AI text presentation speed and order affect perceived comfort, quality, humanness, and trustworthiness, with medium speed rated best.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.