How Human is Human Evaluation? Improving the Gold Standard for NLG with Utility Theory
Human ratings are treated as the gold standard in NLG evaluation. The
standard protocol is to collect ratings of generated text, average across
annotators, and then rank NLG systems by their average scores. However, little
consideration has been given as to whether this approach faithfully captures
human preferences. In this work, we analyze this standard protocol through the
lens of utility theory in economics. We first identify the implicit assumptions
it makes about annotators and find that these assumptions are often violated in
practice, in which case annotator ratings become an unfaithful reflection of
their preferences. The most egregious violations come from using Likert scales,
which provably reverse the direction of the true preference in certain cases.
We suggest improvements to the standard protocol to make it more theoretically
sound, but even in its improved form, it cannot be used to evaluate open-ended
tasks like story generation. For the latter, we propose a new evaluation
protocol called $\textit{system-level probabilistic assessment}$ (SPA). In our
experiments, we find that according to SPA, annotators prefer larger GPT-3
variants to smaller ones -- as expected -- with all comparisons being
statistically significant. In contrast, the standard protocol only yields
significant results half the time.