Arrow Research search

Author name cluster

Mina Lee

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

2 papers
1 author row

Possible papers

2

TMLR Journal 2023 Journal Article

Evaluating Human-Language Model Interaction

  • Mina Lee
  • Megha Srivastava
  • Amelia Hardy
  • John Thickstun
  • Esin Durmus
  • Ashwin Paranjape
  • Ines Gerard-Ursin
  • Xiang Lisa Li

Many real-world applications of language models (LMs), such as writing assistance and code autocomplete, involve human-LM interaction. However, most benchmarks are non-interactive in that a model produces output without human involvement. To evaluate human-LM interaction, we develop a new framework, Human-AI Language-based Interaction Evaluation (HALIE), that defines the components of interactive systems and dimensions to consider when designing evaluation metrics. Compared to standard, non-interactive evaluation, HALIE captures (i) the interactive process, not only the final output; (ii) the first-person subjective experience, not just a third-party assessment; and (iii) notions of preference beyond quality (e.g., enjoyment and ownership). We then design five tasks to cover different forms of interaction: social dialogue, question answering, crossword puzzles, summarization, and metaphor generation. With four state-of-the-art LMs (three variants of OpenAI's GPT-3 and AI21 Labs' Jurassic-1), we find that better non-interactive performance does not always translate to better human-LM interaction. In particular, we highlight three cases where the results from non-interactive and interactive metrics diverge and underscore the importance of human-LM interaction for LM evaluation.

NeurIPS Conference 2019 Conference Paper

SPoC: Search-based Pseudocode to Code

  • Sumith Kulal
  • Panupong Pasupat
  • Kartik Chandra
  • Mina Lee
  • Oded Padon
  • Alex Aiken
  • Percy Liang

We consider the task of mapping pseudocode to executable code, assuming a one-to-one correspondence between lines of pseudocode and lines of code. Given test cases as a mechanism to validate programs, we search over the space of possible translations of the pseudocode to find a program that compiles and passes the test cases. While performing a best-first search, compilation errors constitute 88. 7% of program failures. To better guide this search, we learn to predict the line of the program responsible for the failure and focus search over alternative translations of the pseudocode for that line. For evaluation, we collected the SPoC dataset (Search-based Pseudocode to Code) containing 18, 356 C++ programs with human-authored pseudocode and test cases. Under a budget of 100 program compilations, performing search improves the synthesis success rate over using the top-one translation of the pseudocode from 25. 6% to 44. 7%.

v2026.09.13