Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userReliability of Human Evaluation for Text Summarization: Lessons Learned and Challenges Ahead
موثوقية التقييم البشري لتلخيص النص: الدروس المستفادة والتحديات المقبلة
392
0 0
0.0
(
0
)
Created by
Shamra Editor
Ask ChatGPT about the research
توفر فقط جزء صغير من الأوراق البحثية مع التقييم البشري لتلخيص النص معلومات حول التركيبة السكانية المشارك وتصميم المهام وبروتوكول التجريب.بالإضافة إلى ذلك، يستخدم العديد من الباحثين التقييم البشري كمعيار ذهبي دون التشكيك في الموثوقية أو التحقيق في العوامل التي قد تؤثر على موثوقية التقييم البشري.نتيجة لذلك، هناك نقص في أفضل الممارسات لتقييم التلخيص البشري الموثوق به على أدلة تجريبية.للتحقيق في موثوقية التقييم البشري، نقوم بإجراء سلسلة من تجارب التقييم البشري، وتقديم نظرة عامة على التركيبة السكانية المشارك، وتصميم المهام، وإعداد التجريبية ومقارنة النتائج من تجارب مختلفة.بناء على تحليلنا التجريبي، نقدم مبادئ توجيهية لضمان موثوقية التقييمات الخبراء وغير الخبراء، ونحن نحدد العوامل التي قد تؤثر على موثوقية التقييم البشري.
Only a small portion of research papers with human evaluation for text summarization provide information about the participant demographics, task design, and experiment protocol. Additionally, many researchers use human evaluation as gold standard without questioning the reliability or investigating the factors that might affect the reliability of the human evaluation. As a result, there is a lack of best practices for reliable human summarization evaluation grounded by empirical evidence. To investigate human evaluation reliability, we conduct a series of human evaluation experiments, provide an overview of participant demographics, task design, experimental set-up and compare the results from different experiments. Based on our empirical analysis, we provide guidelines to ensure the reliability of expert and non-expert evaluations, and we determine the factors that might affect the reliability of the human evaluation.
References used
https://aclanthology.org/
rate research
Read More
This paper describes our contribution to the Shared Task ReproGen by Belz et al. (2021), which investigates the reproducibility of human evaluations in the context of Natural Language Generation. We selected the paper Generation of Company descriptio
ns using concept-to-text and text-to-text deep models: data set collection and systems evaluation'' (Qader et al., 2018) and aimed to replicate, as closely to the original as possible, the human evaluation and the subsequent comparison between the human judgements and the automatic evaluation metrics. Here, we first outline the text generation task of the paper of Qader et al. (2018). Then, we document how we approached our replication of the paper's human evaluation. We also discuss the difficulties we encountered and which information was missing. Our replication has medium to strong correlation (0.66 Spearman overall) with the original results of Qader et al. (2018), but due to the missing information about how Qader et al. (2018) compared the human judgements with the metric scores, we have refrained from reproducing this comparison.
In this paper we provide an account of how we ported a text and data mining course online in summer 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and how we improved it in a second pilot run. We describe the course, how we adapted it over the two pilot r
uns and what teaching techniques we used to improve students' learning and community building online. We also provide information on the relentless feedback collected during the course which helped us to adapt our teaching from one session to the next and one pilot to the next. We discuss the lessons learned and promote the use of innovative teaching techniques applied to the digital such as digital badges and pair programming in break-out rooms for teaching Natural Language Processing courses to beginners and students with different backgrounds.
This paper reviews and summarizes human evaluation practices described in 97 style transfer papers with respect to three main evaluation aspects: style transfer, meaning preservation, and fluency. In principle, evaluations by human raters should be t
he most reliable. However, in style transfer papers, we find that protocols for human evaluations are often underspecified and not standardized, which hampers the reproducibility of research in this field and progress toward better human and automatic evaluation methods.
In this paper we apply self-knowledge distillation to text summarization which we argue can alleviate problems with maximum-likelihood training on single reference and noisy datasets. Instead of relying on one-hot annotation labels, our student summa
rization model is trained with guidance from a teacher which generates smoothed labels to help regularize training. Furthermore, to better model uncertainty during training, we introduce multiple noise signals for both teacher and student models. We demonstrate experimentally on three benchmarks that our framework boosts the performance of both pretrained and non-pretrained summarizers achieving state-of-the-art results.
Despite state-of-the-art performance, NLP systems can be fragile in real-world situations. This is often due to insufficient understanding of the capabilities and limitations of models and the heavy reliance on standard evaluation benchmarks. Researc
h into non-standard evaluation to mitigate this brittleness is gaining increasing attention. Notably, the behavioral testing principle Checklist', which decouples testing from implementation revealed significant failures in state-of-the-art models for multiple tasks. In this paper, we present a case study of using Checklist in a practical scenario. We conduct experiments for evaluating an offensive content detection system and use a data augmentation technique for improving the model using insights from Checklist. We lay out the challenges and open questions based on our observations of using Checklist for human-in-loop evaluation and improvement of NLP systems. Disclaimer: The paper contains examples of content with offensive language. The examples do not represent the views of the authors or their employers towards any person(s), group(s), practice(s), or entity/entities.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
