Emphasising Structured Information: Integrating Abstract Meaning Representation into LLMs for Enhanced Open-Domain Dialogue Evaluation (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation metrics struggle to evaluate adversarial negative examples . existing metrics struggle in handling adversarials, resulting in low correlations with human judgments. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that integrates AMR and domain-specific language models for automatic open-domain dialogue evaluation. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation framework achieves strong correlations with human judgments across multiple datasets. |
Similar Papers
SLIDE: A Framework Integrating Small and Large Language Models for Open-Domain Dialogues Evaluation (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing approaches to evaluate open domain dialogues have a one-to-many problem . existing approaches lack commonsense reasoning biases and perform poorly in domain-specific scenarios. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that leverages both a small, specialised model and LLMs for the evaluation of open-domain dialogues. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework achieves state-of-the-art performance in both classification and evaluation tasks and exhibits better correlation with human judgements. |
SR-LLM: Rethinking the Structured Representation in Large Language Model (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Jiahuan Zhang, Tianheng Wang, Ziyi Huang, Yulong Wu, Hanqing Wu, DongbaiChen DongbaiChen, Linfeng Song, Yue Zhang, Guozheng Rao, Kaicheng Yu
| Challenge: | Structured representations have long been pivotal in computational linguistics, but their role remains ambiguous in the Large Language Models (LLMs) era. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that integrates structured representations into LLMs from training-free and training-dependent perspectives. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework integrates structured representations through natural language descriptions in LLM prompts while augmenting the model’s inference capability through fine-tuning on linguistically described structured representation. |
Dialogue-AMR: Abstract Meaning Representation for Dialogue (2020.lrec-1)
Copied to clipboard
Claire Bonial, Lucia Donatelli, Mitchell Abrams, Stephanie M. Lukin, Stephen Tratz, Matthew Marge, Ron Artstein, David Traum, Clare Voss
| Challenge: | Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) does not capture the illocutionary force or speaker’s intended contribution in the broader dialogue context. |
| Approach: | They propose a schema that enriches Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) it provides a semantic representation for facilitating Natural Language Understanding (NLU) in dialogue systems. |
| Outcome: | The proposed schema provides a semantic representation for facilitating Natural Language Understanding (NLU) in human-robot dialogue systems. |
EvalSense: A Framework for Domain-Specific LLM (Meta-)Evaluation (2026.eacl-demo)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | EvalSense is a flexible framework for constructing domain-specific evaluation suites for large language models . it provides out-of-the-box support for a broad range of model providers and evaluation strategies . |
| Approach: | They propose a framework for constructing domain-specific evaluation suites for large language models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework provides out-of-the-box support for a broad range of model providers and evaluation strategies. |
DEAM: Dialogue Coherence Evaluation using AMR-based Semantic Manipulations (2022.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation metrics for incoherent dialogues are insufficient to accurately reflect incohérence . despite the effectiveness of large pretrained language models, not everyone is into this type of work. |
| Approach: | They propose a Dialogue coherence Evaluation metric that uses Abstract Meaning Representation to apply semantic-level Manipulations for incoherent (negative) data generation. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation metric achieves higher correlations with human judgments compared to baseline methods on dialog datasets by significant margins. |
Semantic Representation for Dialogue Modeling (2021.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing models for dialogue modeling lack ability to represent core semantics, such as ignoring important entities. |
| Approach: | They develop an algorithm to construct dialogue-level AMR graphs from sentence-level data and explore two ways to incorporate AMRs into dialogue modeling. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model is superior to existing models on dialogue understanding and response generation tasks. |
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. |
ProactiveEval: A Unified Evaluation Framework for Proactive Dialogue Agents (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing studies on proactive dialogue models focus on domain-specific or task-oriented scenarios, which leads to fragmented evaluations and limits the comprehensive exploration of models’ proactive dialogue abilities. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework for evaluating proactive dialogue capabilities of large language models that decomposes proactive dialogue into target planning and dialogue guidance, establishing evaluation metrics across various domains. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework decomposes proactive dialogue into target planning and dialogue guidance, establishing evaluation metrics across various domains, and enables automatic generation of diverse and challenging evaluation data. |
Leveraging Large Language Models for NLG Evaluation: Advances and Challenges (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | introducing Large Language Models (LLMs) has opened new avenues for assessing generated content quality, e.g., coherence, creativity, and context relevance. |
| Approach: | They propose a taxonomy for organizing existing LLM-based evaluation metrics and a structured framework to understand and compare them. |
| Outcome: | The proposed taxonomy offers a framework to understand and compare LLM-based evaluation methods. |
“You Are An Expert Linguistic Annotator”: Limits of LLMs as Analyzers of Abstract Meaning Representation (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate proficiency and fluency in the use of language, but do they have the linguistic knowledge to serve as an expert linguistic annotator? |
| Approach: | They examine the successes and limitations of large language models using the Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) parsing formalism. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models can reproduce the basic format of AMR, as well as some core event, argument, and modifier structure, but they have virtually no fully accurate parses. |