@inproceedings{gao-etal-2024-reprohum,
    title = "{R}epro{H}um {\#}0087-01: A Reproduction Study of the Human Evaluation of the Coverage of Fact Checking Explanations",
    author = "Gao, Mingqi  and
      Ruan, Jie  and
      Wan, Xiaojun",
    editor = "Balloccu, Simone  and
      Belz, Anya  and
      Huidrom, Rudali  and
      Reiter, Ehud  and
      Sedoc, Joao  and
      Thomson, Craig",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Human Evaluation of NLP Systems (HumEval) @ LREC-COLING 2024",
    month = may,
    year = "2024",
    address = "Torino, Italia",
    publisher = "ELRA and ICCL",
    url = "https://aclanthology.org/2024.humeval-1.25",
    pages = "269--273",
    abstract = "We present a reproduction study of the human evaluation of the coverage of fact checking explanations conducted by Atanasova et al. (2020), as a team in Track B of ReproNLP 2024. The setup of our reproduction study is almost the same as the original study, with some necessary modifications to the evaluation guideline and annotation interface. Our reproduction achieves a higher IAA of 0.20 compared to the original study{'}s 0.12, but discovers a mismatch between the IAA calculated by us with the raw annotation in the original study and the IAA reported in the original paper. Additionally, our reproduction results on the ranks of three types of explanations are drastically different from the original experiment, rendering that one important conclusion in the original paper cannot be confirmed at all. The case study illustrates that the annotators in the reproduction study may understand the quality criterion differently from the annotators in the original study.",
}

We present a reproduction study of the human evaluation of the coverage of fact checking explanations conducted by Atanasova et al. (2020), as a team in Track B of ReproNLP 2024. The setup of our reproduction study is almost the same as the original study, with some necessary modifications to the evaluation guideline and annotation interface. Our reproduction achieves a higher IAA of 0.20 compared to the original study{'}s 0.12, but discovers a mismatch between the IAA calculated by us with the raw annotation in the original study and the IAA reported in the original paper. Additionally, our reproduction results on the ranks of three types of explanations are drastically different from the original experiment, rendering that one important conclusion in the original paper cannot be confirmed at all. The case study illustrates that the annotators in the reproduction study may understand the quality criterion differently from the annotators in the original study.
Gao, Mingqi Ruan, Jie Wan, Xiaojun
ReproHum #0087-01: A Reproduction Study of the Human Evaluation of the Coverage of Fact Checking Explanations