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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Given the ability of GenAI tools to generate human-like content, such as language and code, concerns regarding academic honesty and student learning have dominated discourse [16, 29, 33, 36, 55, 115, 117].”
From "I'd Never Actually Realized How Big An Impact It Had Until Now": Perspectives of University Students with Disabilities on Generative Artificial Intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as [29]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Computing Machinery and Intelligence (1950)
Turing, A. M. (2004) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198250791.003.0017 · Cited by 6,120
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008
Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009 · Cited by 3,493
Liu, C., Lowe, R., Serban, I. V., Noseworthy, M., Charlin, L., & Pineau, J. (2016) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1230 · Cited by 1,377
Hierarchical Neural Story Generation
Fan, A., Lewis, M., & Dauphin, Y. (2018) · Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1082 · Cited by 1,266
Harnessing the wisdom of crowds in wikipedia
Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E. (2008) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/1460563.1460572 · Cited by 700
Soylent: a word processor with a crowd inside
Bernstein, M. S., Little, G., Miller, R. C., Hartmann, B., Ackerman, M. S., Karger, D. R., Crowell, D., & Panovich, K. (2010) · Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology · doi:10.1145/1866029.1866078 · Cited by 686
GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text
Gehrmann, S., Strobelt, H., & Rush, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-3019 · Cited by 470
Why We Need New Evaluation Metrics for NLG
Novikova, J., Dušek, O., Cercas Curry, A., & Rieser, V. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1238 · Cited by 422
(Meta-) evaluation of machine translation
Callison-Burch, C., Fordyce, C. S., Koehn, P., Monz, C., & Schroeder, J. (2007) · Conference on Machine Translation (WMT) · doi:10.3115/1626355.1626373 · Cited by 381
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07258 · Cited by 2,676
Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6 · Cited by 1,099
Perkins, M. (2023) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/1.20.02.07 · Cited by 839
Human heuristics for AI-generated language are flawed
Jakesch, M., Hancock, J. T., & Naaman, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2208839120 · Cited by 342
A Survey of GPT-3 Family Large Language Models Including ChatGPT and GPT-4
Kalyan, K. S. (2024) · Natural Language Processing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100048 · Cited by 335
Metadata
- Authors
- Clark, E., August, T., Serrano, S., Haduong, N., Gururangan, S., & Smith, N. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- Pages
- 7282-7296
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
