Investigating Reproducibility at Interspeech Conferences: A Longitudinal and Comparative Perspective
Authors:
Mohammad Arvan,
A. Seza Doğruöz,
Natalie Parde
Abstract:
Reproducibility is a key aspect for scientific advancement across disciplines, and reducing barriers for open science is a focus area for the theme of Interspeech 2023. Availability of source code is one of the indicators that facilitates reproducibility. However, less is known about the rates of reproducibility at Interspeech conferences in comparison to other conferences in the field. In order t…
▽ More
Reproducibility is a key aspect for scientific advancement across disciplines, and reducing barriers for open science is a focus area for the theme of Interspeech 2023. Availability of source code is one of the indicators that facilitates reproducibility. However, less is known about the rates of reproducibility at Interspeech conferences in comparison to other conferences in the field. In order to fill this gap, we have surveyed 27,717 papers at seven conferences across speech and language processing disciplines. We find that despite having a close number of accepted papers to the other conferences, Interspeech has up to 40% less source code availability. In addition to reporting the difficulties we have encountered during our research, we also provide recommendations and possible directions to increase reproducibility for further studies.
△ Less
Submitted 29 August, 2023; v1 submitted 7 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
Missing Information, Unresponsive Authors, Experimental Flaws: The Impossibility of Assessing the Reproducibility of Previous Human Evaluations in NLP
Authors:
Anya Belz,
Craig Thomson,
Ehud Reiter,
Gavin Abercrombie,
Jose M. Alonso-Moral,
Mohammad Arvan,
Anouck Braggaar,
Mark Cieliebak,
Elizabeth Clark,
Kees van Deemter,
Tanvi Dinkar,
Ondřej Dušek,
Steffen Eger,
Qixiang Fang,
Mingqi Gao,
Albert Gatt,
Dimitra Gkatzia,
Javier González-Corbelle,
Dirk Hovy,
Manuela Hürlimann,
Takumi Ito,
John D. Kelleher,
Filip Klubicka,
Emiel Krahmer,
Huiyuan Lai
, et al. (17 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
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, a…
▽ More
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.
△ Less
Submitted 7 August, 2023; v1 submitted 2 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
