Assessing Dialogue Systems with Distribution Distances

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.02573v2
• Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 05:24:16 GMT
• Title: Assessing Dialogue Systems with Distribution Distances
• Authors: Jiannan Xiang, Yahui Liu, Deng Cai, Huayang Li, Defu Lian and Lemao Liu
• Abstract summary: We propose to measure the performance of a dialogue system by computing the distribution-wise distance between its generated conversations and real-world conversations. Experiments on several dialogue corpora show that our proposed metrics correlate better with human judgments than existing metrics.
• Score: 48.61159795472962
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: An important aspect of developing dialogue systems is how to evaluate and compare the performance of different systems. Existing automatic evaluation metrics are based on turn-level quality evaluation and use average scores for system-level comparison. In this paper, we propose to measure the performance of a dialogue system by computing the distribution-wise distance between its generated conversations and real-world conversations. Specifically, two distribution-wise metrics, FBD and PRD, are developed and evaluated. Experiments on several dialogue corpora show that our proposed metrics correlate better with human judgments than existing metrics.

Related papers

• ComperDial: Commonsense Persona-grounded Dialogue Dataset and Benchmark [26.100299485985197]
  ComperDial consists of human-scored responses for 10,395 dialogue turns in 1,485 conversations collected from 99 dialogue agents. In addition to single-turn response scores, ComperDial also contains dialogue-level human-annotated scores. Building off ComperDial, we devise a new automatic evaluation metric to measure the general similarity of model-generated dialogues to human conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T05:51:04Z)
• PairEval: Open-domain Dialogue Evaluation with Pairwise Comparison [38.03304773600225]
  PairEval is a novel dialogue evaluation metric for assessing responses by comparing their quality against responses in different conversations. We show that PairEval exhibits a higher correlation with human judgments than baseline metrics. We also find that the proposed comparative metric is more robust in detecting common failures from open-domain dialogue systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T09:35:06Z)
• C-PMI: Conditional Pointwise Mutual Information for Turn-level Dialogue Evaluation [68.59356746305255]
  We propose a novel model-agnostic approach to measure the turn-level interaction between the system and the user. Our approach significantly improves the correlation with human judgment compared with existing evaluation systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-27T06:58:03Z)
• Don't Forget Your ABC's: Evaluating the State-of-the-Art in Chat-Oriented Dialogue Systems [12.914512702731528]
  This paper presents a novel human evaluation method to estimate the rates of many dialogue system behaviors. Our method is used to evaluate four state-of-the-art open-domain dialogue systems and compared with existing approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-18T22:07:55Z)
• FineD-Eval: Fine-grained Automatic Dialogue-Level Evaluation [58.46761798403072]
  We propose a dialogue-level metric that consists of three sub-metrics with each targeting a specific dimension. The sub-metrics are trained with novel self-supervised objectives and exhibit strong correlations with human judgment for their respective dimensions. Compared to the existing state-of-the-art metric, the combined metrics achieve around 16% relative improvement on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-25T08:26:03Z)
• Re-Examining System-Level Correlations of Automatic Summarization Evaluation Metrics [64.81682222169113]
  How reliably an automatic summarization evaluation metric replicates human judgments of summary quality is quantified by system-level correlations. We identify two ways in which the definition of the system-level correlation is inconsistent with how metrics are used to evaluate systems in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-21T15:52:14Z)
• A Comprehensive Assessment of Dialog Evaluation Metrics [9.34612743192798]
  Standard language evaluation metrics are ineffective for evaluating dialog. Recent research has proposed a number of novel, dialog-specific metrics that correlate better with human judgements. This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of recently proposed dialog evaluation metrics on a number of datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-07T15:17:03Z)
• Is Your Goal-Oriented Dialog Model Performing Really Well? Empirical Analysis of System-wise Evaluation [114.48767388174218]
  This paper presents an empirical analysis on different types of dialog systems composed of different modules in different settings. Our results show that a pipeline dialog system trained using fine-grained supervision signals at different component levels often obtains better performance than the systems that use joint or end-to-end models trained on coarse-grained labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-15T05:20:06Z)
• Learning an Unreferenced Metric for Online Dialogue Evaluation [53.38078951628143]
  We propose an unreferenced automated evaluation metric that uses large pre-trained language models to extract latent representations of utterances. We show that our model achieves higher correlation with human annotations in an online setting, while not requiring true responses for comparison during inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-01T20:01:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.