This paper is part of the larger ReproHum project, where different teams of researchers aim to reproduce published experiments from the NLP literature. Specifically, ReproHum focuses on the reproducibility of human evaluation studies, where participants indicate the quality of different outputs of Natural Language Generation (NLG) systems. This is necessary because without reproduction studies, we do not know how reliable earlier results are. This paper aims to reproduce the second human evaluation study of Puduppully & Lapata (2021), while another lab is attempting to do the same. This experiment uses best-worst scaling to determine the relative performance of different NLG systems. We found that the worst performing system in the original study is now in fact the best performing system across the board. This means that we cannot fully reproduce the original results. We also carry out alternative analyses of the data, and discuss how our results may be combined with the other reproduction study that is carried out in parallel with this paper.

In this paper, we describe our reproduction ef- fort of the paper: Towards Best Experiment Design for Evaluating Dialogue System Output by Santhanam and Shaikh (2019) for the 2022 ReproGen shared task. We aim to produce the same results, using different human evaluators, and a different implementation of the automatic metrics used in the original paper. Although overall the study posed some challenges to re- produce (e.g. difficulties with reproduction of automatic metrics and statistics), in the end we did find that the results generally replicate the findings of Santhanam and Shaikh (2019) and seem to follow similar trends.

Task effects in NLG corpus elicitation recently started to receive more attention, but are usually not modeled statistically. We present a controlled replication of the study by Van Miltenburg et al. (2018b), contrasting spoken with written descriptions. We collected additional written Dutch descriptions to supplement the spoken data from the DIDEC corpus, and analyzed the descriptions using mixed effects modeling to account for variation between participants and items. Our results show that the effects of modality largely disappear in a controlled setting.

This paper presents the Demo / Kemo corpus of Dutch and Korean emotional speech. The corpus has been specifically developed for the purpose of cross-linguistic comparison, and is more balanced than any similar corpus available so far: a) it contains expressions by both Dutch and Korean actors as well as judgments by both Dutch and Korean listeners; b) the same elicitation technique and recording procedure was used for recordings of both languages; c) the same nonsense sentence, which was constructed to be permissible in both languages, was used for recordings of both languages; and d) the emotions present in the corpus are balanced in terms of valence, arousal, and dominance. The corpus contains a comparatively large number of emotions (eight) uttered by a large number of speakers (eight Dutch and eight Korean). The counterbalanced nature of the corpus will enable a stricter investigation of language-specific versus universal aspects of emotional expression than was possible so far. Furthermore, given the carefully controlled phonetic content of the expressions, it allows for analysis of the role of specific phonetic features in emotional expression in Dutch and Korean.