mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2406.07967 ↗First posted 12 Jun 2024cs.CL cs.LGcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Jun 2024.

Builds on

24 of 52 references.

References · 24

  1. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  2. 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,562
  3. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 719
  4. 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 666
  5. 2019MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distancecited by 415
  6. 2021Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translationcited by 333
  7. 2018Newsroom: A Dataset of 1.3 Million Summaries with Diverse Extractive Strategiescited by 292
  8. 2017Why We Need New Evaluation Metrics for NLGcited by 232
  9. 2017Survey of the State of the Art in Natural Language Generation: Core tasks, applications and evaluationcited by 206
  10. 2020USR: An Unsupervised and Reference Free Evaluation Metric for Dialog Generationcited by 186
  11. 2020Re-evaluating Evaluation in Text Summarizationcited by 144
  12. 2020With Little Power Comes Great Responsibilitycited by 138
12 more
  1. 2019Unifying Human and Statistical Evaluation for Natural Language Generationcited by 127
  2. 2021OpenMEVA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Open-ended Story Generation Metricscited by 61
  3. 2021Transparent Human Evaluation for Image Captioningcited by 40
  4. 2019ParaBank: Monolingual Bitext Generation and Sentential Paraphrasing via Lexically-constrained Neural Machine Translationcited by 38
  5. 2021EMScore: Evaluating Video Captioning via Coarse-Grained and Fine-Grained Embedding Matchingcited by 36
  6. 2018Findings of the E2E NLG Challengecited by 28
  7. 2018Efficient Online Scalar Annotation with Bounded Supportcited by 27
  8. 2022ILDAE: Instance-Level Difficulty Analysis of Evaluation Datacited by 17
  9. 2022We need to talk about random seedscited by 12
  10. 2022Active Evaluation: Efficient NLG Evaluation with Few Pairwise Comparisonscited by 10
  11. 2021Online Learning Meets Machine Translation Evaluation: Finding the Best Systems with the Least Human Effortcited by 7
  12. 2022Searching for a higher power in the human evaluation of MTcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3.

4 papers.