Statistical significance testing is a standard statistical tool designed to ensure that experimental results are not coincidental. In this opinion/theoretical paper we discuss the role of statistical significance testing in Natural Language Processing (NLP) research. We establish the fundamental concepts of significance testing and discuss the specific aspects of NLP tasks, experimental setups and evaluation measures that affect the choice of significance tests in NLP research. Based on this discussion, we propose a simple practical protocol for statistical significance test selection in NLP setups and accompany this protocol with a brief survey of the most relevant tests. We then survey recent empirical papers published in ACL and TACL during 2017 and show that while our community assigns great value to experimental results, statistical significance testing is often ignored or misused. We conclude with a brief discussion of open issues that should be properly addressed so that this important tool can be applied in NLP research in a statistically sound manner 1 .

Comparing between Deep Neural Network (DNN) models based on their performance on unseen data is crucial for the progress of the NLP field. However, these models have a large number of hyper-parameters and, being non-convex, their convergence point depends on the random values chosen at initialization and during training. Proper DNN comparison hence requires a comparison between their empirical score distributions on unseen data, rather than between single evaluation scores as is standard for more simple, convex models. In this paper, we propose to adapt to this problem a recently proposed test for the Almost Stochastic Dominance relation between two distributions. We define the criteria for a high quality comparison method between DNNs, and show, both theoretically and through analysis of extensive experimental results with leading DNN models for sequence tagging tasks, that the proposed test meets all criteria while previously proposed methods fail to do so. We hope the test we propose here will set a new working practice in the NLP community. 1

The quality of a summarization evaluation metric is quantified by calculating the correlation between its scores and human annotations across a large number of summaries. Currently, it is unclear how precise these correlation estimates are, nor whether differences between two metrics’ correlations reflect a true difference or if it is due to mere chance. In this work, we address these two problems by proposing methods for calculating confidence intervals and running hypothesis tests for correlations using two resampling methods, bootstrapping and permutation. After evaluating which of the proposed methods is most appropriate for summarization through two simulation experiments, we analyze the results of applying these methods to several different automatic evaluation metrics across three sets of human annotations. We find that the confidence intervals are rather wide, demonstrating high uncertainty in the reliability of automatic metrics. Further, although many metrics fail to show statistical improvements over ROUGE, two recent works, QAEval and BERTScore, do so in some evaluation settings.1

With the ever growing amounts of textual data from a large variety of languages, domains and genres, it has become standard to evaluate NLP algorithms on multiple datasets in order to ensure consistent performance across heterogeneous setups. However, such multiple comparisons pose significant challenges to traditional statistical analysis methods in NLP and can lead to erroneous conclusions. In this paper we propose a Replicability Analysis framework for a statistically sound analysis of multiple comparisons between algorithms for NLP tasks. We discuss the theoretical advantages of this framework over the current, statistically unjustified, practice in the NLP literature, and demonstrate its empirical value across four applications: multi-domain dependency parsing, multilingual POS tagging, cross-domain sentiment classification and word similarity prediction. 1

No abstract