Current standards for designing and reporting human evaluations in NLP mean it is generally unclear which evaluations are comparable and can be expected to yield similar results when applied to the same system outputs. This has serious implications for reproducibility testing and meta-evaluation, in particular given that human evaluation is considered the gold standard against which the trustworthiness of automatic metrics is gauged. %and merging others, as well as deciding which evaluations should be able to reproduce each other’s results. Using examples from NLG, we propose a classification system for evaluations based on disentangling (i) what is being evaluated (which aspect of quality), and (ii) how it is evaluated in specific (a) evaluation modes and (b) experimental designs. We show that this approach provides a basis for determining comparability, hence for comparison of evaluations across papers, meta-evaluation experiments, reproducibility testing.
This paper received the Best Paper Award for INLG 2020!