Automated response generation from electronic health records (EHRs) holds potential to reduce clinician workload, but it introduces important challenges related to factual accuracy and reliable grounding in clinical evidence. We present a structured three-step pipeline that uses large language models (LLMs) for evidence classification, guided response generation, and iterative quality control. To enable rigorous evaluation, our framework combines traditional reference-based metrics with a claim-level “LLM-as-a-Judge” methodology. On the ArchEHR-QA benchmark, our system achieves 82.0 percent claim-level evidence faithfulness and 51.6 percent citation-level factuality, demonstrating strong performance in generating clinically grounded responses. These findings highlight the utility of structured LLM pipelines in healthcare applications, while also underscoring the importance of transparent evaluation and continued refinement. All code, prompt templates, and evaluation tools are publicly available.

Reproducibility remains a fundamental challenge for human evaluation in Natural Language Processing (NLP), particularly due to the inherent subjectivity and variability of human judgments. This paper presents a reproduction study of the human evaluation protocol introduced by Hosking and Lapata (2021), which assesses semantic preservation in paraphrase generation models. By faithfully reproducing the original experiment with careful adaptation and applying the Quantified Reproducibility Assessment framework (Belz and Thomson, 2024a; Belz, 2022), we demonstrate strong agreement with the original findings, confirming the semantic preservation ranking among four paraphrase models. Our analyses reveal moderate inter-annotator agreement and low variability in key results, underscoring a good degree of reproducibility despite practical deviations in participant recruitment and platform. These findings highlight the feasibility and challenges of reproducing human evaluation studies in NLP. We discuss implications for improving methodological rigor, transparent reporting, and standardized protocols to bolster reproducibility in future human evaluations. The data and analysis scripts are publicly available to support ongoing community efforts toward reproducible evaluation in NLP and beyond.

Human evaluations are indispensable in the development of NLP systems because they provide direct insights into how effectively these systems meet real-world needs and expectations. Ensuring the reproducibility of these evaluations is vital for maintaining credibility in natural language processing research. This paper presents our reproduction of the human evaluation experiments conducted by Hosking et al. (2022) for their paraphrase generation approach. Through careful replication we found that our results closely align with those in the original study, indicating a high degree of reproducibility.

It might reasonably be expected that running multiple experiments for the same task using the same data and model would yield very similar results. Recent research has, however, shown this not to be the case for many NLP experiments. In this paper, we report extensive coordinated work by two NLP groups to run the training and testing pipeline for three neural text simplification models under varying experimental conditions, including different random seeds, run-time environments, and dependency versions, yielding a large number of results for each of the three models using the same data and train/dev/test set splits. From one perspective, these results can be interpreted as shedding light on the reproducibility of evaluation results for the three NTS models, and we present an in-depth analysis of the variation observed for different combinations of experimental conditions. From another perspective, the results raise the question of whether the averaged score should be considered the ‘true’ result for each model.

This paper presents a partial reproduction study of Data-to-text Generation with Macro Planning by Puduppully et al. (2021). This work was conducted as part of the ReproHum project, a multi-lab effort to reproduce the results of NLP papers incorporating human evaluations. We follow the same instructions provided by the authors and the ReproHum team to the best of our abilities. We collect preference ratings for the following evaluation criteria in order: conciseness, coherence, and grammaticality. Our results are highly correlated with the original experiment. Nonetheless, we believe the presented results are insufficent to conclude that the Macro system proposed and developed by the original paper is superior compared to other systems. We suspect combining our results with the three other reproductions of this paper through the ReproHum project will paint a clearer picture. Overall, we hope that our work is a step towards a more transparent and reproducible research landscape.

We report our efforts in identifying a set of previous human evaluations in NLP that would be suitable for a coordinated study examining what makes human evaluations in NLP more/less reproducible. We present our results and findings, which include that just 13% of papers had (i) sufficiently low barriers to reproduction, and (ii) enough obtainable information, to be considered for reproduction, and that all but one of the experiments we selected for reproduction was discovered to have flaws that made the meaningfulness of conducting a reproduction questionable. As a result, we had to change our coordinated study design from a reproduce approach to a standardise-then-reproduce-twice approach. Our overall (negative) finding that the great majority of human evaluations in NLP is not repeatable and/or not reproducible and/or too flawed to justify reproduction, paints a dire picture, but presents an opportunity for a rethink about how to design and report human evaluations in NLP.

The availability of source code has been put forward as one of the most critical factors for improving the reproducibility of scientific research. This work studies trends in source code availability at major computational linguistics conferences, namely, ACL, EMNLP, LREC, NAACL, and COLING. We observe positive trends, especially in conferences that actively promote reproducibility. We follow this by conducting a reproducibility study of eight papers published in EMNLP 2021, finding that source code releases leave much to be desired. Moving forward, we suggest all conferences require self-contained artifacts and provide a venue to evaluate such artifacts at the time of publication. Authors can include small-scale experiments and explicit scripts to generate each result to improve the reproducibility of their work.

The reproducibility of NLP research has drawn increased attention over the last few years. Several tools, guidelines, and metrics have been introduced to address concerns in regard to this problem; however, much work still remains to ensure widespread adoption of effective reproducibility standards. In this work, we review the reproducibility of Exploring Neural Text Simplification Models by Nisioi et al. (2017), evaluating it from three main aspects: data, software artifacts, and automatic evaluations. We discuss the challenges and issues we faced during this process. Furthermore, we explore the adequacy of current reproducibility standards. Our code, trained models, and a docker container of the environment used for training and evaluation are made publicly available.