Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

A Comprehensive Assessment of Dialog Evaluation Metrics

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2106.03706 v4 pith:GAKHJQIB submitted 2021-06-07 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords metricsdifferentdialogevaluationassessedassessmentcomprehensivedatasets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Automatic evaluation metrics are a crucial component of dialog systems research. Standard language evaluation metrics are known to be ineffective for evaluating dialog. As such, recent research has proposed a number of novel, dialog-specific metrics that correlate better with human judgements. Due to the fast pace of research, many of these metrics have been assessed on different datasets and there has as yet been no time for a systematic comparison between them. To this end, this paper provides a comprehensive assessment of recently proposed dialog evaluation metrics on a number of datasets. In this paper, 23 different automatic evaluation metrics are evaluated on 10 different datasets. Furthermore, the metrics are assessed in different settings, to better qualify their respective strengths and weaknesses. Metrics are assessed (1) on both the turn level and the dialog level, (2) for different dialog lengths, (3) for different dialog qualities (e.g., coherence, engaging), (4) for different types of response generation models (i.e., generative, retrieval, simple models and state-of-the-art models), (5) taking into account the similarity of different metrics and (6) exploring combinations of different metrics. This comprehensive assessment offers several takeaways pertaining to dialog evaluation metrics in general. It also suggests how to best assess evaluation metrics and indicates promising directions for future work.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Towards Automatic Evaluation of Task-Oriented Dialogue Flows

    cs.CL 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FuDGE and FF1 automatically score dialogue flow graphs by how compactly and completely they represent a corpus of task-oriented conversations.

  2. clem:todd: A Framework for the Systematic Benchmarking of LLM-Based Task-Oriented Dialogue System Realisations

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    clem:todd is a self-play benchmarking framework for task-oriented dialogue systems, and its MultiWOZ 2.2 booking experiments show monolithic and LLM-managed modular systems beating a fixed pipeline at lower cost.

  3. Towards Understanding the Robustness of LLM-based Evaluations under Perturbations

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Gemini's scores align poorly with human judgments on summarization and dialog quality, and its scores drop sharply when the prompt includes a deliberately inverted human rating.

Pith tools