RADE: Reference-Assisted Dialogue Evaluation for Open-Domain Dialogue

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.08156v2
• Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 00:43:47 GMT
• Title: RADE: Reference-Assisted Dialogue Evaluation for Open-Domain Dialogue
• Authors: Zhengliang Shi, Weiwei Sun, Shuo Zhang, Zhen Zhang, Pengjie Ren, Zhaochun Ren
• Abstract summary: We propose the Reference-Assisted Dialogue Evaluation (RADE) approach under the multi-task learning framework. RADE explicitly compares reference and the candidate response to predict their overall scores. Experiments on our three datasets and two existing benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
• Score: 37.82954848948347
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating open-domain dialogue systems is challenging for reasons such as the one-to-many problem, i.e., many appropriate responses other than just the golden response. As of now, automatic evaluation methods need better consistency with humans, while reliable human evaluation can be time- and cost-intensive. To this end, we propose the Reference-Assisted Dialogue Evaluation (RADE) approach under the multi-task learning framework, which leverages the pre-created utterance as reference other than the gold response to relief the one-to-many problem. Specifically, RADE explicitly compares reference and the candidate response to predict their overall scores. Moreover, an auxiliary response generation task enhances prediction via a shared encoder. To support RADE, we extend three datasets with additional rated responses other than just a golden response by human annotation. Experiments on our three datasets and two existing benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, where Pearson, Spearman, and Kendall correlations with human evaluation outperform state-of-the-art baselines.

Related papers

• 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)
• PICK: Polished & Informed Candidate Scoring for Knowledge-Grounded Dialogue Systems [59.1250765143521]
  Current knowledge-grounded dialogue systems often fail to align the generated responses with human-preferred qualities. We propose Polished & Informed Candidate Scoring (PICK), a generation re-scoring framework. We demonstrate the effectiveness of PICK in generating responses that are more faithful while keeping them relevant to the dialogue history.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-19T08:27:09Z)
• Reranking Overgenerated Responses for End-to-End Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems [71.33737787564966]
  End-to-end (E2E) task-oriented dialogue (ToD) systems are prone to fall into the so-called 'likelihood trap' We propose a reranking method which aims to select high-quality items from the lists of responses initially overgenerated by the system. Our methods improve a state-of-the-art E2E ToD system by 2.4 BLEU, 3.2 ROUGE, and 2.8 METEOR scores, achieving new peak results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T15:59:49Z)
• A Systematic Evaluation of Response Selection for Open Domain Dialogue [36.88551817451512]
  We curated a dataset where responses from multiple response generators produced for the same dialog context are manually annotated as appropriate (positive) and inappropriate (negative) We conduct a systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art methods for response selection, and demonstrate that both strategies of using multiple positive candidates and using manually verified hard negative candidates can bring in significant performance improvement in comparison to using the adversarial training data, e.g., increase of 3% and 13% in Recall@1 score, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-08T19:33:30Z)
• WeaSuL: Weakly Supervised Dialogue Policy Learning: Reward Estimation for Multi-turn Dialogue [17.663449579168297]
  We simulate a dialogue between an agent and a user (modelled similar to an agent with supervised learning objective) to interact with each other. The agent uses dynamic blocking to generate ranked diverse responses and exploration-exploitation to select among the Top-K responses. Empirical studies with two benchmarks indicate that our model can significantly out-perform the response quality and lead to a successful conversation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-01T08:00:45Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)
• Dialogue Response Ranking Training with Large-Scale Human Feedback Data [52.12342165926226]
  We leverage social media feedback data to build a large-scale training dataset for feedback prediction. We trained DialogRPT, a set of GPT-2 based models on 133M pairs of human feedback data. Our ranker outperforms the conventional dialog perplexity baseline with a large margin on predicting Reddit feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-15T10:50:05Z)
• Multi-Stage Conversational Passage Retrieval: An Approach to Fusing Term Importance Estimation and Neural Query Rewriting [56.268862325167575]
  We tackle conversational passage retrieval (ConvPR) with query reformulation integrated into a multi-stage ad-hoc IR system. We propose two conversational query reformulation (CQR) methods: (1) term importance estimation and (2) neural query rewriting. For the former, we expand conversational queries using important terms extracted from the conversational context with frequency-based signals. For the latter, we reformulate conversational queries into natural, standalone, human-understandable queries with a pretrained sequence-tosequence model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-05T14:30:20Z)
• Designing Precise and Robust Dialogue Response Evaluators [35.137244385158034]
  We propose to build a reference-free evaluator and exploit the power of semi-supervised training and pretrained language models. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed evaluator achieves a strong correlation (> 0.6) with human judgement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-10T04:59:37Z)

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.