Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at many tasks but struggle with ambiguous scenarios where multiple valid responses exist, often yielding unreliable results. Conversely, Small Language Models (SLMs) demonstrate robustness in such scenarios but are susceptible to misleading or adversarial inputs. We observed that LLMs handle negative examples effectively, while SLMs excel with positive examples. To leverage their complementary strengths, we introduce SLIDE (Small and Large Integrated for Dialogue Evaluation), a method integrating SLMs and LLMs via adaptive weighting. Building on SLIDE, we further propose a Dual-Refinement Evaluation (DRE) method to enhance SLM-LLM integration: (1) SLM-generated insights guide the LLM to produce initial evaluations; (2) SLM-derived adjustments refine the LLM's scores for improved accuracy. Experiments demonstrate that DRE outperforms existing methods, showing stronger alignment with human judgment across diverse benchmarks. This work illustrates how combining small and large models can yield more reliable evaluation tools, particularly for open-ended tasks such as dialogue evaluation.

Despite being heralded as the new standard for dialogue evaluation, the closed-source nature of GPT-4 poses challenges for the community. Motivated by the need for lightweight, open source, and multilingual dialogue evaluators, this paper introduces GenResCoh (Generated Responses targeting Coherence). GenResCoh is a novel LLM generated dataset comprising over 130k negative and positive responses and accompanying explanations seeded from XDailyDialog and XPersona covering English, French, German, Italian, and Chinese. Leveraging GenResCoh, we propose ECoh (Evaluation of Coherence), a family of evaluators trained to assess response coherence across multiple languages. Experimental results demonstrate that ECoh achieves multilingual detection capabilities superior to the teacher model (GPT-3.5-Turbo) on GenResCoh, despite being based on a much smaller architecture. Furthermore, the explanations provided by ECoh closely align in terms of quality with those generated by the teacher model.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased remarkable capabilities in various Natural Language Processing tasks. For automatic open-domain dialogue evaluation in particular, LLMs have been seamlessly integrated into evaluation frameworks, and together with human evaluation, compose the backbone of most evaluations. However, existing evaluation benchmarks often rely on outdated datasets and evaluate aspects like Fluency and Relevance, which fail to adequately capture the capabilities and limitations of state-of-the-art chatbot models. This paper critically examines current evaluation benchmarks, highlighting that the use of older response generators and quality aspects fail to accurately reflect modern chatbot capabilities. A small annotation experiment on a recent LLM-generated dataset (SODA) reveals that LLM evaluators such as GPT-4 struggle to detect actual deficiencies in dialogues generated by current LLM chatbots.

In task-oriented conversational AI evaluation, unsupervised methods poorly correlate with human judgments, and supervised approaches lack generalization. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) show robust zeroshot and few-shot capabilities across NLP tasks. This paper explores using LLMs for automated dialogue quality evaluation, experimenting with various configurations on public and proprietary datasets. Manipulating factors such as model size, in-context examples, and selection techniques, we examine "chain-of-thought" (CoT) reasoning and label extraction procedures. Our results show that (1) larger models yield more accurate dialogue labels; (2) algorithmic selection of in-context examples outperforms random selection; (3) CoT reasoning where an LLM is asked to provide justifications before outputting final labels improves performance; and (4) fine-tuned LLMs outperform out-of-the-box ones. Our results indicate that LLMs that are suitably fine-tuned and have sufficient reasoning capabilities can be leveraged for automated dialogue evaluation.

We propose a new benchmark, ComperDial, which facilitates the training and evaluation of evaluation metrics for open-domain dialogue systems. ComperDial consists of human-scored responses for 10,395 dialogue turns in 1,485 conversations collected from 99 dialogue agents submitted to the Commonsense Persona-grounded Dialogue (CPD) challenge. As a result, for any dialogue, our benchmark includes multiple diverse responses with variety of characteristics to ensure more robust evaluation of learned dialogue metrics. In addition to single-turn response scores, ComperDial also contains dialogue-level human-annotated scores, enabling joint assessment of multi-turn model responses throughout a dialogue. Finally, building off ComperDial, we devise a new automatic evaluation metric to measure the general similarity of model-generated dialogues to human conversations. Our experimental results demonstrate that our novel metric, CPDScore is more correlated with human judgments than existing metrics. We release both ComperDial and CPDScore to the community to accelerate development of automatic evaluation metrics for open-domain dialogue systems.

This research investigates prompt designs of evaluating generated texts using large language models (LLMs). While LLMs are increasingly used for scoring various inputs, creating effective prompts for open-ended text evaluation remains challenging due to model sensitivity and subjectivity in evaluation of text generation. Our study experimented with different prompt structures, altering the sequence of output instructions and including explanatory reasons. We found that the order of presenting reasons and scores significantly influences LLMs' scoring, with a different level of rule understanding in the prompt. An additional optimization may enhance scoring alignment if sufficient data is available. This insight is crucial for improving the accuracy and consistency of LLM-based evaluations.

This research investigates the effect of prompt design on dialogue evaluation using large language models (LLMs). While LLMs are increasingly used for scoring various inputs, creating effective prompts for dialogue evaluation remains challenging due to model sensitivity and subjectivity in dialogue assessments. Our study experimented with different prompt structures, altering the sequence of output instructions and including explanatory reasons. We found that the order of presenting reasons and scores significantly influences LLMs' scoring, with a "reason-first" approach yielding more comprehensive evaluations. This insight is crucial for enhancing the accuracy and consistency of LLM-based evaluations.

Automatic open-domain dialogue evaluation has attracted increasing attention. Trainable evaluation metrics are commonly trained with true positive and randomly selected negative responses, resulting in a tendency for them to assign a higher score to the responses that share higher content similarity with a given context. However, adversarial negative responses possess high content similarity with the contexts whilst being semantically different. Therefore, existing evaluation metrics are not robust enough to evaluate such responses, resulting in low correlations with human judgments. While recent studies have shown some efficacy in utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) for open-domain dialogue evaluation, they still encounter challenges in effectively handling adversarial negative examples. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective framework for open-domain dialogue evaluation, which combines domain-specific language models (SLMs) with LLMs. The SLMs can explicitly incorporate Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) graph information of the dialogue through a gating mechanism for enhanced semantic representation learning. The evaluation result of SLMs and AMR graph information are plugged into the prompt of LLM, for the enhanced in-context learning performance. Experimental results on open-domain dialogue evaluation tasks demonstrate the superiority of our method compared to a wide range of state-of-the-art baselines, especially in discriminating adversarial negative responses.

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.

Natural Language Generation (NLG) typically involves evaluating the generated text in various aspects (e.g., consistency and naturalness) to obtain a comprehensive assessment. However, multi-aspect evaluation remains challenging as it may require the evaluator to generalize to any given evaluation aspect even if it's absent during training. In this paper, we introduce X-Eval, a two-stage instruction tuning framework to evaluate the text in both seen and unseen aspects customized by end users. X-Eval consists of two learning stages: the vanilla instruction tuning stage that improves the model's ability to follow evaluation instructions, and an enhanced instruction tuning stage that exploits the connections between fine-grained evaluation aspects to better assess text quality. To support the training of X-Eval, we collect AspectInstruct, the first instruction tuning dataset tailored for multi-aspect NLG evaluation spanning 27 diverse evaluation aspects with 65 tasks. To enhance task diversity, we devise an augmentation strategy that converts human rating annotations into diverse forms of NLG evaluation tasks, including scoring, comparison, ranking, and Boolean question answering. Extensive experiments across three essential categories of NLG tasks: dialogue generation, summarization, and data-to-text coupled with 21 aspects in meta-evaluation, demonstrate that our X-Eval enables even a lightweight language model to achieve a comparable if not higher correlation with human judgments compared to the state-of-the-art NLG evaluators, such as GPT-4.