Evaluation is a cornerstone topic in NLP. However, many criticisms have been raised about the community’s evaluation practices, including a lack of human-centered considerations about people’s needs for language technologies and their actual impact on people. This “evaluation crisis” is exacerbated by the recent development of large generative models with diverse and uncertain capabilities. This tutorial aims to inspire more human-centered evaluation in NLP by introducing perspectives and methodologies from human-computer interaction (HCI), a field concerned primarily with the design and evaluation of technologies. The tutorial will start with an overview of current NLP evaluation practices and their limitations, then introduce the “toolbox of evaluation methods” from HCI with varying considerations such as what to evaluate for, how generalizable the results are to the real-world contexts, and pragmatic costs to conduct the evaluation. The tutorial will also encourage reflection on how these HCI perspectives and methodologies can complement NLP evaluation through Q&A discussions and a hands-on exercise.

Benchmarking is seen as critical to assessing progress in NLP. However, creating a benchmark involves many design decisions (e.g., which datasets to include, which metrics to use) that often rely on tacit, untested assumptions about what the benchmark is intended to measure or is actually measuring. There is currently no principled way of analyzing these decisions and how they impact the validity of the benchmark’s measurements. To address this gap, we draw on evidence-centered design in educational assessments and propose Evidence-Centered Benchmark Design (ECBD), a framework which formalizes the benchmark design process into five modules. ECBD specifies the role each module plays in helping practitioners collect evidence about capabilities of interest. Specifically, each module requires benchmark designers to describe, justify, and support benchmark design choices—e.g., clearly specifying the capabilities the benchmark aims to measure or how evidence about those capabilities is collected from model responses. To demonstrate the use of ECBD, we conduct case studies with three benchmarks: BoolQ, SuperGLUE, and HELM. Our analysis reveals common trends in benchmark design and documentation that could threaten the validity of benchmarks’ measurements.

Virtual environments play a key role in benchmarking advances in complex planning and decision-making tasks but are expensive and complicated to build by hand. Can current language models themselves serve as world simulators, correctly predicting how actions change different world states, thus bypassing the need for extensive manual coding? Our goal is to answer this question in the context of text-based simulators. Our approach is to build and use a new benchmark, called ByteSized32-State-Prediction, containing a dataset of text game state transitions and accompanying game tasks. We use this to directly quantify, for the first time, how well LLMs can serve as text-based world simulators. We test GPT-4 on this dataset and find that, despite its impressive performance, it is still an unreliable world simulator without further innovations. This work thus contributes both new insights into current LLM’s capabilities and weaknesses, as well as a novel benchmark to track future progress as new models appear.

We address a fundamental challenge in Natural Language Generation (NLG) model evaluation—the design and evaluation of evaluation metrics. Recognizing the limitations of existing automatic metrics and noises from how current human evaluation was conducted, we propose MetricEval, a framework informed by measurement theory, the foundation of educational test design, for conceptualizing and evaluating the reliability and validity of NLG evaluation metrics. The framework formalizes the source of measurement error and offers statistical tools for evaluating evaluation metrics based on empirical data. With our framework, one can quantify the uncertainty of the metrics to better interpret the result. To exemplify the use of our framework in practice, we analyzed a set of evaluation metrics for summarization and identified issues related to conflated validity structure in human-eval and reliability in LLM-based metrics. Through MetricEval, we aim to promote the design, evaluation, and interpretation of valid and reliable metrics to advance robust and effective NLG models.

In this work we investigate the capacity of language models to generate explicit, interpretable, and interactive world models of scientific and common-sense reasoning tasks. We operationalize this as a task of generating text games, expressed as hundreds of lines of Python code. To facilitate this task, we introduce ByteSized32, a corpus of 32 reasoning-focused text games totalling 20k lines of Python code. We empirically demonstrate that GPT-4 can use these games as templates for single-shot in-context learning, successfully producing runnable games on unseen topics in 28% of cases. When allowed to self-reflect on program errors, game runnability substantially increases to 58%. While evaluating simulation fidelity is labor intensive, we introduce a suite of automated metrics to assess game fidelity, technical validity, adherence to task specifications, and winnability, showing a high-degree of agreement with expert human ratings. We pose this as a challenge task to spur further development at the juncture of world modeling and code generation.