Dialogue You Can Trust: Human and AI Perspectives on Generated Conversations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.01808v2
• Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 13:33:46 GMT
• Title: Dialogue You Can Trust: Human and AI Perspectives on Generated Conversations
• Authors: Ike Ebubechukwu, Johane Takeuchi, Antonello Ceravola, Frank Joublin,
• Abstract summary: This study explores the comparative performance of human and AI assessments across a range of dialogue scenarios. In Experiment 1, we evaluated multi-party conversations on Coherence, Innovation, Concreteness, and Goal Contribution. In Experiment 2, we focused on dyadic dialogues and assessing Commonsense Contradiction, Incorrect Fact, and Redundancy.
• Score: 1.178527785547223
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As dialogue systems and chatbots increasingly integrate into everyday interactions, the need for efficient and accurate evaluation methods becomes paramount. This study explores the comparative performance of human and AI assessments across a range of dialogue scenarios, focusing on seven key performance indicators (KPIs): Coherence, Innovation, Concreteness, Goal Contribution, Commonsense Contradiction, Incorrect Fact, and Redundancy. Utilizing the GPT-4o API, we generated a diverse dataset of conversations and conducted a two-part experimental analysis. In Experiment 1, we evaluated multi-party conversations on Coherence, Innovation, Concreteness, and Goal Contribution, revealing that GPT models align closely with human judgments. Notably, both human and AI evaluators exhibited a tendency towards binary judgment rather than linear scaling, highlighting a shared challenge in these assessments. Experiment 2 extended the work of Finch et al. (2023) by focusing on dyadic dialogues and assessing Commonsense Contradiction, Incorrect Fact, and Redundancy. The results indicate that while GPT-4o demonstrates strong performance in maintaining factual accuracy and commonsense reasoning, it still struggles with reducing redundancy and self-contradiction. Our findings underscore the potential of GPT models to closely replicate human evaluation in dialogue systems, while also pointing to areas for improvement. This research offers valuable insights for advancing the development and implementation of more refined dialogue evaluation methodologies, contributing to the evolution of more effective and human-like AI communication tools.

Related papers

• Automated Speaking Assessment of Conversation Tests with Novel Graph-based Modeling on Spoken Response Coherence [11.217656140423207]
  ASAC aims to evaluate the overall speaking proficiency of an L2 speaker in a setting where an interlocutor interacts with one or more candidates. We propose a hierarchical graph model that aptly incorporates both broad inter-response interactions and nuanced semantic information. Extensive experimental results on the NICT-JLE benchmark dataset suggest that our proposed modeling approach can yield considerable improvements in prediction accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T07:24:07Z)
• Unveiling the Achilles' Heel of NLG Evaluators: A Unified Adversarial Framework Driven by Large Language Models [52.368110271614285]
  We introduce AdvEval, a novel black-box adversarial framework against NLG evaluators. AdvEval is specially tailored to generate data that yield strong disagreements between human and victim evaluators. We conduct experiments on 12 victim evaluators and 11 NLG datasets, spanning tasks including dialogue, summarization, and question evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T14:48:15Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• I like fish, especially dolphins: Addressing Contradictions in Dialogue Modeling [104.09033240889106]
  We introduce the DialoguE COntradiction DEtection task (DECODE) and a new conversational dataset containing both human-human and human-bot contradictory dialogues. We then compare a structured utterance-based approach of using pre-trained Transformer models for contradiction detection with the typical unstructured approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-24T18:47:49Z)
• Is this Dialogue Coherent? Learning from Dialogue Acts and Entities [82.44143808977209]
  We create the Switchboard Coherence (SWBD-Coh) corpus, a dataset of human-human spoken dialogues annotated with turn coherence ratings. Our statistical analysis of the corpus indicates how turn coherence perception is affected by patterns of distribution of entities. We find that models combining both DA and entity information yield the best performances both for response selection and turn coherence rating.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-17T21:02:40Z)
• You Impress Me: Dialogue Generation via Mutual Persona Perception [62.89449096369027]
  The research in cognitive science suggests that understanding is an essential signal for a high-quality chit-chat conversation. Motivated by this, we propose P2 Bot, a transmitter-receiver based framework with the aim of explicitly modeling understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-11T12:51:07Z)

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.