Cited by 70Speech and dialogue systemsTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

Towards Holistic and Automatic Evaluation of Open-Domain Dialogue Generation

Open access
Pang, Bo, Nijkamp, Erik, Han, Wenjuan, Zhou, Linqi, Liu, Yixian, Tu, Kewei·2020·Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

Open-domain dialogue generation has gained increasing attention in Natural Language Processing.Its evaluation requires a holistic means.Human ratings are deemed as the gold standard.As human evaluation is inefficient and costly, an automated substitute is highly desirable.In this paper, we propose holistic evaluation metrics that capture different aspects of open-domain dialogues.Our metrics consist of (1) GPT-2 based context coherence between sentences in a dialogue, (2) GPT-2 based fluency in phrasing, (3) n-gram based diversity in responses to augmented queries, and (4) textual-entailment-inference based logical self-consistency.The empirical validity of our metrics is demonstrated by strong correlations with human judgments.We open source the code and relevant materials.1

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.333

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. George A Miller. 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. MIT press.
  2. Alan Turing. 1950. Computing machinery and intelligence-am turing. Mind, 59(236):433.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pang, B., Nijkamp, E., Han, W., Zhou, L., Liu, Y., & Tu, K.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • ShanghaiTech University (CN)
Venue
Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Published
2020
Pages
3619-3629
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2990563493
Cited by
70
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 2
FWCI
5.44
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (61976139)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
open-domain dialogue generation, automatic evaluation metrics, holistic assessment, fluency, response diversity, natural language inference, GPT-2, human evaluation correlation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review