# ReproHum #0087-01: Human Evaluation Reproduction Report for Generating Fact Checking Explanations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.17481 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.17481/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 18 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Apr 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.01108/) (2019)
- [All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.00061/) (2021)
- [Generating Fact Checking Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.05773/) (2020)
- [LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09766/) (2023)
- [The Iron(ic) Melting Pot: Reviewing Human Evaluation in Humour, Irony and Sarcasm Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.05552/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This paper presents a partial reproduction of Generating Fact Checking Explanations by Anatanasova et al (2020) as part of the ReproHum element of the ReproNLP shared task to reproduce the findings of NLP research regarding human evaluation. This shared task aims to investigate the extent to which NLP as a field is becoming more or less reproducible over time. Following the instructions provided by the task organisers and the original authors, we collect relative rankings of 3 fact-checking explanations (comprising a gold standard and the outputs of 2 models) for 40 inputs on the criteria of Coverage. The results of our reproduction and reanalysis of the original work's raw results lend support to the original findings, with similar patterns seen between the original work and our reproduction. Whilst we observe slight variation from the original results, our findings support the main conclusions drawn by the original authors pertaining to the efficacy of their proposed models.