PairEval: Open-domain Dialogue Evaluation with Pairwise Comparison

ChaeHun Park, Minseok Choi, Dohyun Lee, Jaegul Choo
4/1/2024
cs.CL

No official code found. Best implementation: ddehun/PairEval (5 stars, last commit 2024-07-17).

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.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations(1)

ddehun/PairEvalCommunity100%

Official Code Repository for the paper "PAIREVAL: Open-domain Dialogue Evaluation with Pairwise Comparison" (COLM 2024).

51PythonApr 1, 20242 years ago

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{park2024paireval,
  title  = {PairEval: Open-domain Dialogue Evaluation with Pairwise Comparison},
  author = {ChaeHun Park and Minseok Choi and Dohyun Lee and Jaegul Choo},
  year   = {2024},
  eprint = {2404.01015},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01015v2}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2404.01015.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2404.01015)

Discussion