5 accepted papers
The effectiveness of automatic evaluation of generative models is typically measured by comparing the labels generated via automation with human labels using correlation metrics. However, metrics like Krippendorff's $\alpha$ and Randolph's $\kappa$ were originally designed to measure the reliab…
In this position paper, we argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking that draws upon the insights from disciplines such as user experience research and human behavioral psychology to ensure that the experimental design and result…
The NLP community typically relies on performance of a model on a held-out test set to assess generalization. Performance drops observed in datasets outside of official test sets are generally attributed to “out-of-distribution” effects. Here, we explore the foundations of generalizability and study…
Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent summaries across domains using prompting techniques, reducing the effort required for summarization applications. However, crafting effective prompts that guide LLMs to generate summaries with the appropriate level of detail and writing style remains…
BERT-based models have had strong performance on leaderboards, yet have been demonstrably worse in real-world settings requiring generalization. Limited quantities of training data is considered a key impediment to achieving generalizability in machine learning. In this paper, we examine the impact…