Quantified Reproducibility Assessment of NLP Results
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This paper describes and tests a method for carrying out quantified reproducibility assessment (QRA) that is based on concepts and definitions from metrology. QRA produces a single score estimating the degree of reproducibility of a given system and evaluation measure, on the basis of the scores from, and differences between, different reproductions. We test QRA on 18 system and evaluation measure combinations (involving diverse NLP tasks and types of evaluation), for each of which we have the original results and one to seven reproduction results. The proposed QRA method produces degree-of-reproducibility scores that are comparable across multiple reproductions not only of the same, but of different original studies. We find that the proposed method facilitates insights into causes of variation between reproductions, and allows conclusions to be drawn about what changes to system and/or evaluation design might lead to improved reproducibility.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Apr 2022.
Builds on
5 of 28 references.
References · 5
- 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,799
- 2021A Systematic Review of Reproducibility Research in Natural Language Processingcited by 34
- 2021The Human Evaluation Datasheet 1.0: A Template for Recording Details of Human Evaluation Experiments in NLPcited by 19
- 2018Experiments with Universal CEFR Classificationcited by 17
- 2017Sustainable computational science: the ReScience initiativecited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 8.
8 papers.
- 2023KoLA: Carefully Benchmarking World Knowledge of Large Language Modelscited by 85
- 2023Missing Information, Unresponsive Authors, Experimental Flaws: The Impossibility of Assessing the Reproducibility of Previous Human Evaluations in NLPcited by 21
- 2023Position: Key Claims in LLM Research Have a Long Tail of Footnotescited by 20
- 2023When Good and Reproducible Results are a Giant with Feet of Clay: The Importance of Software Quality in NLPcited by 14
- 2023Collect, Measure, Repeat: Reliability Factors for Responsible AI Data Collectioncited by 5
- 2023Principles from Clinical Research for NLP Model Generalizationcited by 4
- 2023Investigating Reproducibility at Interspeech Conferences: A Longitudinal and Comparative Perspectivecited by 0
- 2023With a Little Help from the Authors: Reproducing Human Evaluation of an MT Error Detectorcited by 0
- 2023Principles from Clinical Research for NLP Model Generalization7 Nov 2023
- 2023Collect, Measure, Repeat: Reliability Factors for Responsible AI Data Collection22 Aug 2023
- 2023Position: Key Claims in LLM Research Have a Long Tail of Footnotes14 Aug 2023
- 2023With a Little Help from the Authors: Reproducing Human Evaluation of an MT Error Detector12 Aug 2023
- 2023KoLA: Carefully Benchmarking World Knowledge of Large Language Models15 Jun 2023
- 2023Investigating Reproducibility at Interspeech Conferences: A Longitudinal and Comparative Perspective7 Jun 2023
- 2023Missing Information, Unresponsive Authors, Experimental Flaws: The Impossibility of Assessing the Reproducibility of Previous Human Evaluations in NLP2 May 2023
- 2023When Good and Reproducible Results are a Giant with Feet of Clay: The Importance of Software Quality in NLP28 Mar 2023