Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Hierarchical Evaluation Framework: Best Practices for Human Evaluation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2310.01917 v2 pith:ZQGCJGLG submitted 2023-10-03 cs.CL cs.HC

Hierarchical Evaluation Framework: Best Practices for Human Evaluation

classification cs.CL cs.HC
keywords evaluationframeworkhumansystemsdevelopedevaluategapshierarchical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Human evaluation plays a crucial role in Natural Language Processing (NLP) as it assesses the quality and relevance of developed systems, thereby facilitating their enhancement. However, the absence of widely accepted human evaluation metrics in NLP hampers fair comparisons among different systems and the establishment of universal assessment standards. Through an extensive analysis of existing literature on human evaluation metrics, we identified several gaps in NLP evaluation methodologies. These gaps served as motivation for developing our own hierarchical evaluation framework. The proposed framework offers notable advantages, particularly in providing a more comprehensive representation of the NLP system's performance. We applied this framework to evaluate the developed Machine Reading Comprehension system, which was utilized within a human-AI symbiosis model. The results highlighted the associations between the quality of inputs and outputs, underscoring the necessity to evaluate both components rather than solely focusing on outputs. In future work, we will investigate the potential time-saving benefits of our proposed framework for evaluators assessing NLP systems.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. LLM-as-a-Judge for Privacy Evaluation? Exploring the Alignment of Human and LLM Perceptions of Privacy in Textual Data

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0

    Across 10 text datasets, 13 LLMs, and 677 human raters, LLM privacy ratings align closely with the average human rating, while inter-human agreement is low.