Socio-Emotional Response Generation: A Human Evaluation Protocol for LLM-Based Conversational Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.04492v1
• Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 08:15:36 GMT
• Title: Socio-Emotional Response Generation: A Human Evaluation Protocol for LLM-Based Conversational Systems
• Authors: Lorraine Vanel, Ariel R. Ramos Vela, Alya Yacoubi, Chloé Clavel,
• Abstract summary: We propose a neural architecture that includes an intermediate step in planning socio-emotional strategies before response generation. Our study shows that predicting a sequence of expected strategy labels and using this sequence to generate a response yields better results than a direct end-to-end generation scheme.
• Score: 9.101091541480434
• License:
• Abstract: Conversational systems are now capable of producing impressive and generally relevant responses. However, we have no visibility nor control of the socio-emotional strategies behind state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs), which poses a problem in terms of their transparency and thus their trustworthiness for critical applications. Another issue is that current automated metrics are not able to properly evaluate the quality of generated responses beyond the dataset's ground truth. In this paper, we propose a neural architecture that includes an intermediate step in planning socio-emotional strategies before response generation. We compare the performance of open-source baseline LLMs to the outputs of these same models augmented with our planning module. We also contrast the outputs obtained from automated metrics and evaluation results provided by human annotators. We describe a novel evaluation protocol that includes a coarse-grained consistency evaluation, as well as a finer-grained annotation of the responses on various social and emotional criteria. Our study shows that predicting a sequence of expected strategy labels and using this sequence to generate a response yields better results than a direct end-to-end generation scheme. It also highlights the divergences and the limits of current evaluation metrics for generated content. The code for the annotation platform and the annotated data are made publicly available for the evaluation of future models.

Related papers

• RAGEval: Scenario Specific RAG Evaluation Dataset Generation Framework [69.4501863547618]
  This paper introduces RAGEval, a framework designed to assess RAG systems across diverse scenarios. With a focus on factual accuracy, we propose three novel metrics Completeness, Hallucination, and Irrelevance. Experimental results show that RAGEval outperforms zero-shot and one-shot methods in terms of clarity, safety, conformity, and richness of generated samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T13:35:11Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• PROXYQA: An Alternative Framework for Evaluating Long-Form Text Generation with Large Language Models [72.57329554067195]
  ProxyQA is an innovative framework dedicated to assessing longtext generation. It comprises in-depth human-curated meta-questions spanning various domains, each accompanied by specific proxy-questions with pre-annotated answers. It assesses the generated content's quality through the evaluator's accuracy in addressing the proxy-questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T18:12:25Z)
• LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores [23.568883428947494]
  We investigate whether prominent LM-based evaluation metrics demonstrate a favorable bias toward their respective underlying LMs in the context of summarization tasks. Our findings unveil a latent bias, particularly pronounced when such evaluation metrics are used in a reference-free manner without leveraging gold summaries. These results underscore that assessments provided by generative evaluation models can be influenced by factors beyond the inherent text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:43:26Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)
• TRUE: Re-evaluating Factual Consistency Evaluation [29.888885917330327]
  We introduce TRUE: a comprehensive study of factual consistency metrics on a standardized collection of existing texts from diverse tasks. Our standardization enables an example-level meta-evaluation protocol that is more actionable and interpretable than previously reported correlations. Across diverse state-of-the-art metrics and 11 datasets we find that large-scale NLI and question generation-and-answering-based approaches achieve strong and complementary results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T10:14:35Z)
• A Revised Generative Evaluation of Visual Dialogue [80.17353102854405]
  We propose a revised evaluation scheme for the VisDial dataset. We measure consensus between answers generated by the model and a set of relevant answers. We release these sets and code for the revised evaluation scheme as DenseVisDial.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-20T13:26:45Z)

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.