PairEval: Open-domain Dialogue Evaluation with Pairwise Comparison

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01015v2
• Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 02:00:41 GMT
• Title: PairEval: Open-domain Dialogue Evaluation with Pairwise Comparison
• Authors: ChaeHun Park, Minseok Choi, Dohyun Lee, Jaegul Choo,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 38.03304773600225
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Building a reliable and automated evaluation metric is a necessary but challenging problem for open-domain dialogue systems. Recent studies proposed evaluation metrics that assess generated responses by considering their relevance to previous dialogue histories. Although effective, these metrics evaluate individual responses directly rather than considering their relative quality compared to other responses. To handle this, we propose PairEval, a novel dialogue evaluation metric for assessing responses by comparing their quality against responses in different conversations. PairEval is built on top of open-sourced and moderate-size language models, and we make them specialized in pairwise comparison between dialogue responses. Extensive experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate that our metric 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, including repetition and speaker insensitivity.

Related papers

• CausalScore: An Automatic Reference-Free Metric for Assessing Response Relevance in Open-Domain Dialogue Systems [43.5428962271088]
  We propose a novel metric, called CausalScore, which assesses the relevance of responses by measuring the causal strength between dialogue histories and responses. Our experimental results demonstrate that CausalScore significantly surpasses existing state-of-the-art metrics by aligning better with human judgements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T06:08:16Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• User Response and Sentiment Prediction for Automatic Dialogue Evaluation [69.11124655437902]
  We propose to use the sentiment of the next user utterance for turn or dialog level evaluation. Experiments show our model outperforming existing automatic evaluation metrics on both written and spoken open-domain dialogue datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-16T22:19:17Z)
• DynaEval: Unifying Turn and Dialogue Level Evaluation [60.66883575106898]
  We propose DynaEval, a unified automatic evaluation framework. It is capable of performing turn-level evaluation, but also holistically considers the quality of the entire dialogue. Experiments show that DynaEval significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art dialogue coherence model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T12:23:18Z)
• Assessing Dialogue Systems with Distribution Distances [48.61159795472962]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-06T10:30:13Z)
• 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.