| Challenge: | In natural language processing, IAA is often viewed as a means of assessing the quality of data on a task, in particular, the reliability. |
| Approach: | They propose a new approach to use agreement metrics in natural language generation evaluation tasks to reduce subjective bias. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach is based on the inter-annotator agreement (IAA) of natural language generation tasks. |
Similar Papers
Would you describe a leopard as yellow? Evaluating crowd-annotations with justified and informative disagreement (2020.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation methods rely on agreement between annotators, which implies a single correct interpretation. |
| Approach: | They propose an agreement-independent quality metric based on answer-coherence to evaluate on expected disagreement. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model shows that agreement is the most important indicator of quality in semantic annotation tasks. |
Increasing Argument Annotation Reproducibility by Using Inter-annotator Agreement to Improve Guidelines (L18-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Argument Mining systems require large amounts of data to characterize phenomena and find patterns that can be exploited by an automatic analyzer. |
| Approach: | They propose to exploit inter-annotator agreement measures to improve Argument annotation guidelines. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method improves Argument annotation guidelines by exploiting inter-annotator agreement measures. |
Curious Case of Language Generation Evaluation Metrics: A Cautionary Tale (2020.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a few popular metrics are still used to evaluate language generation systems despite their known limitations. |
| Approach: | They propose to use automatic metrics to evaluate language generation systems . they show that they prefer system outputs to human-authored texts . |
| Outcome: | The proposed metrics are insensitive to correct translations of rare words and can yield high scores when given a single sentence as system output for the entire test set. |
What Can We Learn from Collective Human Opinions on Natural Language Inference Data? (2020.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Despite the subjective nature of many NLU evaluations, little attention has been paid to the distribution of human opinions. |
| Approach: | They use a dataset with 464,500 annotations to study Collective HumAn OpinionS . they argue that models lack the ability to recover the distribution over human labels . |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset examines the distribution of human opinions in NLU evaluation datasets. |
The Authenticity Gap in Human Evaluation (2022.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Using the standard protocol to evaluate NLGs is often violated, resulting in annotator ratings cease to reflect their preferences. |
| Approach: | They propose a human evaluation protocol called system-level probabilistic assessment (SPA) this protocol is based on the assumption that annotators are biased by likert scales . |
| Outcome: | The proposed protocol can recover the ordering of GPT-3 models by size, but less than half of the expected preferences can be recovered when human evaluation is done with the standard protocol. |
A Tutorial on Evaluation Metrics used in Natural Language Generation (2021.naacl-tutorials)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | This tutorial presents the evolution of automatic evaluation metrics to their current state along with emerging trends in this field. |
| Approach: | This tutorial presents the evolution of automatic evaluation metrics to their current state . it aims to assess the extent of scientific progress made and identify areas/components that need improvement . |
| Outcome: | This tutorial presents the evolution of automatic evaluation metrics to their current state along with emerging trends in this field. |
You Are What You Annotate: Towards Better Models through Annotator Representations (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Annotator disagreement is ubiquitous in natural language processing tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose to model annotators' idiosyncrasies and account for their idioms by creating representations for each annotator and their annotations. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves on an existing dataset with eight annotators with inherent disagreements while increasing model size by 1%. |
Are We Modeling the Task or the Annotator? An Investigation of Annotator Bias in Natural Language Understanding Datasets (D19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Having only a few workers generate the majority of dataset examples raises concerns about data diversity . |
| Approach: | They perform a series of experiments to investigate annotator biases in recent NLU datasets . they find that models are able to recognize the most productive annotators . |
| Outcome: | The results show that models can recognize the most productive annotators and do not generalize well to examples from annotator that did not contribute to the training set. |
Holistic Inter-Annotator Agreement and Corpus Coherence Estimation in a Large-scale Multilingual Annotation Campaign (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | In this paper we examine the complexity of persuasion technique annotation in a multilingual annotation campaign involving 6 languages and approximately 40 annotators. |
| Approach: | They propose a word embedding-based annotator agreement metric and propose 'holistic IAA' metric to measure the coherence of the entire dataset. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method is compared with the existing IAA metrics and its correlation with the results. |
Unifying Human and Statistical Evaluation for Natural Language Generation (N19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Human evaluation captures quality but fails to capture diversity . statistical evaluation fails to catch models that plagiarize from training set . |
| Approach: | They propose a framework which evaluates both diversity and quality based on the optimal error rate of predicting whether a sentence is human-generated. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework evaluates diversity and quality on summarization and chit-chat dialogue. |