Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Better than Random: Reliable NLG Human Evaluation with Constrained Active Sampling

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

arxiv 2406.07967 v1 pith:XT5TA4L4 submitted 2024-06-12 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords evaluationhumanreliablecasfconstrainedinter-systemrankingactive
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Human evaluation is viewed as a reliable evaluation method for NLG which is expensive and time-consuming. To save labor and costs, researchers usually perform human evaluation on a small subset of data sampled from the whole dataset in practice. However, different selection subsets will lead to different rankings of the systems. To give a more correct inter-system ranking and make the gold standard human evaluation more reliable, we propose a Constrained Active Sampling Framework (CASF) for reliable human judgment. CASF operates through a Learner, a Systematic Sampler and a Constrained Controller to select representative samples for getting a more correct inter-system ranking.Experiment results on 137 real NLG evaluation setups with 44 human evaluation metrics across 16 datasets and 5 NLG tasks demonstrate CASF receives 93.18% top-ranked system recognition accuracy and ranks first or ranks second on 90.91% of the human metrics with 0.83 overall inter-system ranking Kendall correlation.Code and data are publicly available online.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How to Select Datapoints for Efficient Human Evaluation of NLG Models?

    cs.CL 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Selecting human-evaluation items by metric variance, metric consistency, output diversity, or IRT-based informativeness matches random-sampling ranking accuracy with roughly 70% of the annotation budget in WMT23 and SummEval.

Pith tools