An open challenge in constructing dialogue systems is developing methods for automatically learning dialogue strategies from large amounts of unlabelled data. Recent work has proposed Next-Utterance-Classification (NUC) as a surrogate task for building dialogue systems from text data. In this paper we investigate the performance of humans on this task to validate the relevance of NUC as a method of evaluation. Our results show three main findings: (1) humans are able to correctly classify responses at a rate much better than chance, thus confirming that the task is feasible, (2) human performance levels vary across task domains (we consider 3 datasets) and expertise levels (novice vs experts), thus showing that a range of performance is possible on this type of task, (3) automated dialogue systems built using state-of-the-art machine learning methods have similar performance to the human novices, but worse than the experts, thus confirming the utility of this class of tasks for driving further research in automated dialogue systems.
Recent evaluation metrics for unsupervised dialogue systems include BLEU @cite_13 and METEOR @cite_15 , which compare the similarity between response generated by the model, and the actual response of the participant, conditioned on some context of the conversation. Word perplexity, which computes a function of the probability of re-generating examples from the training corpus, is also used. However, such metrics have been shown to correlate very weakly with human judgement of the produced responses @cite_12 . They also suffer from several other drawbacks @cite_12 , including low scores, lack of interpretability, and inability to account for the vast space of acceptable outputs in natural conversation.
@cite_15 @cite_13 @cite_12
2123301721 2101105183 2328886022
We describe METEOR, an automatic metric for machine translation evaluation that is based on a generalized concept of unigram matching between the machineproduced translation and human-produced reference translations. Unigrams can be matched based on their surface forms, stemmed forms, and meanings; furthermore, METEOR can be easily extended to include more advanced matching strategies. Once all generalized unigram matches between the two strings have been found, METEOR computes a score for this matching using a combination of unigram-precision, unigram-recall, and a measure of fragmentation that is designed to directly capture how well-ordered the matched words in the machine translation are in relation to the reference. We evaluate METEOR by measuring the correlation between the metric scores and human judgments of translation quality. We compute the Pearson R correlation value between its scores and human quality assessments of the LDC TIDES 2003 Arabic-to-English and Chinese-to-English datasets. We perform segment-bysegment correlation, and show that METEOR gets an R correlation value of 0.347 on the Arabic data and 0.331 on the Chinese data. This is shown to be an improvement on using simply unigramprecision, unigram-recall and their harmonic F1 combination. We also perform experiments to show the relative contributions of the various mapping modules. Human evaluations of machine translation are extensive but expensive. Human evaluations can take months to finish and involve human labor that can not be reused. We propose a method of automatic machine translation evaluation that is quick, inexpensive, and language-independent, that correlates highly with human evaluation, and that has little marginal cost per run. We present this method as an automated understudy to skilled human judges which substitutes for them when there is need for quick or frequent evaluations. We investigate evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation systems where supervised labels, such as task completion, are not available. Recent works in response generation have adopted metrics from machine translation to compare a model's generated response to a single target response. We show that these metrics correlate very weakly with human judgements in the non-technical Twitter domain, and not at all in the technical Ubuntu domain. We provide quantitative and qualitative results highlighting specific weaknesses in existing metrics, and provide recommendations for future development of better automatic evaluation metrics for dialogue systems.