Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userREAM$sharp$: An Enhancement Approach to Reference-based Evaluation Metrics for Open-domain Dialog Generation
84
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Jun Gao
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The lack of reliable automatic evaluation metrics is a major impediment to the development of open-domain dialogue systems. Various reference-based metrics have been proposed to calculate a score between a predicted response and a small set of references. However, these metrics show unsatisfactory correlations with human judgments. For a reference-based metric, its reliability mainly depends on two factors: its ability to measure the similarity between the predicted response and the reference response, as well as the reliability of the given reference set. Yet, there are few discussions on the latter. Our work attempts to fill this vacancy. We first clarify an assumption on reference-based metrics that, if more high-quality references are added into the reference set, the reliability of the metric will increase. Next, we present REAM$sharp$: an enhancement approach to Reference-based EvAluation Metrics for open-domain dialogue systems. A prediction model is designed to estimate the reliability of the given reference set. We show how its predicted results can be helpful to augment the reference set, and thus improve the reliability of the metric. Experiments validate both the effectiveness of our prediction model and that the reliability of reference-based metrics improves with the augmented reference sets.
rate research
Read More
Multiple different responses are often plausible for a given open domain dialog context. Prior work has shown the importance of having multiple valid reference responses for meaningful and robust automated evaluations. In such cases, common practice has been to collect more human written references. However, such collection can be expensive, time consuming, and not easily scalable. Instead, we propose a novel technique for automatically expanding a human generated reference to a set of candidate references. We fetch plausible references from knowledge sources, and adapt them so that they are more fluent in context of the dialog instance in question. More specifically, we use (1) a commonsense knowledge base to elicit a large number of plausible reactions given the dialog history (2) relevant instances retrieved from dialog corpus, using similar past as well as future contexts. We demonstrate that our automatically expanded reference sets lead to large improvements in correlations of automated metrics with human ratings of system outputs for DailyDialog dataset.
Open-domain human-computer conversation has been attracting increasing attention over the past few years. However, there does not exist a standard automatic evaluation metric for open-domain dialog systems; researchers usually resort to human annotation for model evaluation, which is time- and labor-intensive. In this paper, we propose RUBER, a Referenced metric and Unreferenced metric Blended Evaluation Routine, which evaluates a reply by taking into consideration both a groundtruth reply and a query (previous user-issued utterance). Our metric is learnable, but its training does not require labels of human satisfaction. Hence, RUBER is flexible and extensible to different datasets and languages. Experiments on both retrieval and generative dialog systems show that RUBER has a high correlation with human annotation.
Building an open-domain conversational agent is a challenging problem. Current evaluation methods, mostly post-hoc judgments of static conversation, do not capture conversation quality in a realistic interactive context. In this paper, we investigate interactive human evaluation and provide evidence for its necessity; we then introduce a novel, model-agnostic, and dataset-agnostic method to approximate it. In particular, we propose a self-play scenario where the dialog system talks to itself and we calculate a combination of proxies such as sentiment and semantic coherence on the conversation trajectory. We show that this metric is capable of capturing the human-rated quality of a dialog model better than any automated metric known to-date, achieving a significant Pearson correlation (r>.7, p<.05). To investigate the strengths of this novel metric and interactive evaluation in comparison to state-of-the-art metrics and human evaluation of static conversations, we perform extended experiments with a set of models, including several that make novel improvements to recent hierarchical dialog generation architectures through sentiment and semantic knowledge distillation on the utterance level. Finally, we open-source the interactive evaluation platform we built and the dataset we collected to allow researchers to efficiently deploy and evaluate dialog models.
Since the pre-trained language models are widely used, retrieval-based open-domain dialog systems, have attracted considerable attention from researchers recently. Most of the previous works select a suitable response only according to the matching degree between the query and each individual candidate response. Although good performance has been achieved, these recent works ignore the comparison among the candidate responses, which could provide rich information for selecting the most appropriate response. Intuitively, better decisions could be made when the models can get access to the comparison information among all the candidate responses. In order to leverage the comparison information among the candidate responses, in this paper, we propose a novel and plug-in Self-attention Comparison Module for retrieval-based open-domain dialog systems, called SCM. Extensive experiment results demonstrate that our proposed self-attention comparison module effectively boosts the performance of the existing retrieval-based open-domain dialog systems. Besides, we have publicly released our source codes for future research.
Conversational agents are exploding in popularity. However, much work remains in the area of non goal-oriented conversations, despite significant growth in research interest over recent years. To advance the state of the art in conversational AI, Amazon launched the Alexa Prize, a 2.5-million dollar university competition where sixteen selected university teams built conversational agents to deliver the best social conversational experience. Alexa Prize provided the academic community with the unique opportunity to perform research with a live system used by millions of users. The subjectivity associated with evaluating conversations is key element underlying the challenge of building non-goal oriented dialogue systems. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive evaluation strategy with multiple metrics designed to reduce subjectivity by selecting metrics which correlate well with human judgement. The proposed metrics provide granular analysis of the conversational agents, which is not captured in human ratings. We show that these metrics can be used as a reasonable proxy for human judgment. We provide a mechanism to unify the metrics for selecting the top performing agents, which has also been applied throughout the Alexa Prize competition. To our knowledge, to date it is the largest setting for evaluating agents with millions of conversations and hundreds of thousands of ratings from users. We believe that this work is a step towards an automatic evaluation process for conversational AIs.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
