CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 290Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingText Readability and Simplification

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 33 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Text

Open access
Clark, Elizabeth, August, Tal, Serrano, Sofia, Haduong, Nikita, Gururangan, Suchin, Smith, Noah A.·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2107.00061arXiv 2107.00061
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Human evaluations are typically considered the gold standard in natural language generation, but as models' fluency improves, how well can evaluators detect and judge machine-generated text? We run a study assessing non-experts' ability to distinguish between human- and machine-authored text (GPT2 and GPT3) in three domains (stories, news articles, and recipes). We find that, without training, evaluators distinguished between GPT3- and human-authored text at random chance level. We explore three approaches for quickly training evaluators to better identify GPT3-authored text (detailed instructions, annotated examples, and paired examples) and find that while evaluators' accuracy improved up to 55%, it did not significantly improve across the three domains. Given the inconsistent results across text domains and the often contradictory reasons evaluators gave for their judgments, we examine the role untrained human evaluations play in NLG evaluation and provide recommendations to NLG researchers for improving human evaluations of text generated from state-of-the-art models.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2107.00061

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert- Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901.
  2. Florian Daniel, Pavel Kucherbaev, Cinzia Cappiello, Boualem Benatallah, and Mohammad Allahbakhsh. 2018. Quality control in crowdsourcing: A survey of quality attributes, assessment techniques, and as- surance actions. In ACM Computing Surveys, vol- ume 51. Association for Computing Machinery. · DOI
  3. Stephanie Schoch, Diyi Yang, and Yangfeng Ji. 2020. "This is a problem, don't you agree?" Framing and bias in human evaluation for natural language gener- ation. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Evalu- ating NLG Evaluation, pages 10-16, Online (Dublin, Ireland). Association for Computational Linguistics.
  4. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. 2019a. HellaSwag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In Pro- ceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, pages 4791- 4800, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Hannah Rashkin, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, Franziska Roesner, and Yejin Choi. 2019b. Defending against neural fake news. In Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, volume 32.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 290

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Clark, E., August, T., Serrano, S., Haduong, N., Gururangan, S., & Smith, N. A.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
Pages
7282-7296
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2107.00061
arXiv
2107.00061
OpenAlex
W3174007554
Cited by
290
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 7
FWCI
22.41
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014‐18‐1‐2670, N00014-18, N00014)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Text Readability and Simplification
Keywords
human evaluation of generated text, assessment reliability, interobserver agreement, human annotators, text quality assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review