Achieving Reliable Human Assessment of Open-Domain Dialogue Systems (2022.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Evaluation of open-domain dialogue systems is challenging and unreliable . human evaluation of live conversations is highly reliable, but reliability cannot be assumed . |
| Approach: | They propose a method of open-domain dialogue evaluation that is highly reliable . they compare live conversations with models that avoid pre-created reference dialogues . |
| Outcome: | The proposed method is highly reliable while remaining feasible and low cost. |
Similar Papers
Towards Holistic and Automatic Evaluation of Open-Domain Dialogue Generation (2020.acl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods of open-domain dialogue evaluation are labor-intensive and inefficient. |
| Approach: | They propose to use open-domain dialogues to evaluate different aspects of dialogues using holistic evaluation metrics. |
| Outcome: | The proposed metrics show strong correlations with human judgments. |
Evaluating Dialogue Generation Systems via Response Selection (2020.acl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing automatic evaluation metrics for open-domain dialogue systems correlate poorly with human evaluation. |
| Approach: | They propose to construct response selection test sets with well-chosen false candidates to evaluate response generation systems via response selection. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method correlates with human evaluation better than widely used metrics such as BLEU. |
Don’t Forget Your ABC’s: Evaluating the State-of-the-Art in Chat-Oriented Dialogue Systems (2023.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation methods are biased because of their subjectivity and inconsistent evaluation can misinform the performance of a chat-oriented open-domain dialogue system. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a human evaluation method to estimate the rates of manypasted macro ‘LN’ dialogue system behaviors to compare them with existing evaluation methods. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method is more suitable than alternative Likert-style or comparative approaches for dimensional evaluation of open-domain dialogue systems. |
Evaluating Coherence in Dialogue Systems using Entailment (N19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Evaluating open-domain dialogue systems is difficult due to the diversity of possible correct answers. |
| Approach: | They propose a set of metrics for evaluating topic coherence using distributed sentence representations and calculable approximations of human judgment using conversational coherency. |
| Outcome: | The proposed metrics can be used as a surrogate for human judgment based on conversational coherence on large-scale datasets and provide an unbiased estimate for the quality of the responses. |
Proxy Indicators for the Quality of Open-domain Dialogues (2021.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for evaluation of open-domain dialogues are expensive and require human annotators to evaluate their quality. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a deep-learning model trained on the general language understanding evaluation benchmark to serve as a quality indication of open-domain dialogues. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can infer various quality metrics and derive a component-based overall score. |
Automating Human Evaluation of Dialogue Systems (2022.naacl-srw)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a recent study shows that human evaluations of dialogue systems weakly reflect human judgments. |
| Approach: | They propose a BERT-based model that fine-tunes a model with three prediction heads to predict whether the system-generated output is natural, fluent, and informative. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model achieves an average accuracy of 77% over the 3 labels . it also uses three different models to compute the labels compared to three separate models . |
What is wrong with you?: Leveraging User Sentiment for Automatic Dialog Evaluation (2022.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing metrics for dialog evaluation are trained on human annotations, which is cumbersome to collect. |
| Approach: | They propose to use user sentiment and other information as proxy to measure the quality of previous dialogs. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model is comparable to models trained on human annotated data. |
Designing Precise and Robust Dialogue Response Evaluators (2020.acl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing automated dialogue response evaluators have only moderate correlation with human judgement and are not robust. |
| Approach: | They propose to build a reference-free dialogue response evaluator that exploits the power of semi-supervised training and pretrained (masked) language models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model achieves strong correlation with human judgement and generalizes robustly to diverse responses and corpora. |
Treating Dialogue Quality Evaluation as an Anomaly Detection Problem (2020.lrec-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Dialogue systems for interaction with humans are becoming more popular . the best way to estimate their success is through means of human evaluation . |
| Approach: | They investigate the effectiveness of perceiving dialogue evaluation as an anomaly detection task. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach is based on four models and shows negative results . the proposed approach could be used in the future to improve human-led dialogue evaluations. |
Soda-Eval: Open-Domain Dialogue Evaluation in the age of LLMs (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Current evaluation practices of open domain dialogue systems are still highly dependent on human evaluation. |
| Approach: | They propose to use an annotated dataset to evaluate chatbots using large language models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves over few-shot inferences on a GPT-3.5 generated dialogue dataset. |