Open-Domain Text Evaluation via Contrastive Distribution Methods
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent advancements in open-domain text generation, driven by the power of large pre-trained language models (LLMs), have demonstrated remarkable performance. However, assessing these models' generation quality remains a challenge. In this paper, we introduce a novel method for evaluating open-domain text generation called Contrastive Distribution Methods (CDM). Leveraging the connection between increasing model parameters and enhanced LLM performance, CDM creates a mapping from the _contrast_ of two probabilistic distributions -- one known to be superior to the other -- to quality measures. We investigate CDM for open-domain text generation evaluation under two paradigms: 1) _Generative_ CDM, which harnesses the contrast of two language models' distributions to generate synthetic examples for training discriminator-based metrics; 2) _Discriminative_ CDM, which directly uses distribution disparities between two language models for evaluation. Our experiments on coherence evaluation for multi-turn dialogue and commonsense evaluation for controllable generation demonstrate CDM's superior correlate with human judgment than existing automatic evaluation metrics, highlighting the strong performance and generalizability of our approach.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jun 2023.
Builds on
26 of 41 references.
References · 26
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,320
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,278
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,549
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,480
- 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,765
- 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,228
- 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,200
- 2018Personalizing Dialogue Agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too?cited by 824
- 2022Contrastive Decoding: Open-ended Text Generation as Optimizationcited by 600
- 2021MAUVE: Measuring the Gap Between Neural Text and Human Text using Divergence Frontierscited by 468
- 2019COMET: Commonsense Transformers for Automatic Knowledge Graph Constructioncited by 450
- 2016How NOT To Evaluate Your Dialogue System: An Empirical Study of Unsupervised Evaluation Metrics for Dialogue Response Generationcited by 356
14 more
- 2022Towards a Unified Multi-Dimensional Evaluator for Text Generationcited by 264
- 2016A Network-based End-to-End Trainable Task-oriented Dialogue Systemcited by 252
- 2022Efficient Training of Language Models to Fill in the Middlecited by 251
- 2018Plan-And-Write: Towards Better Automatic Storytellingcited by 232
- 2020Unsupervised Evaluation of Interactive Dialog with DialoGPTcited by 139
- 2017Adversarial Learning for Neural Dialogue Generationcited by 103
- 2017Towards an Automatic Turing Test: Learning to Evaluate Dialogue Responsescited by 98
- 2021DynaEval: Unifying Turn and Dialogue Level Evaluationcited by 59
- 2020Overview of the Ninth Dialog System Technology Challenge: DSTC9cited by 49
- 2019What Makes A Good Story? Designing Composite Rewards for Visual Storytellingcited by 29
- 2022DEAM: Dialogue Coherence Evaluation using AMR-based Semantic Manipulationscited by 25
- 2023ACCENT: An Automatic Event Commonsense Evaluation Metric for Open-Domain Dialogue Systemscited by 11
- 2018Measuring Semantic Coherence of a Conversationcited by 10
- 2022On the Usefulness of Embeddings, Clusters and Strings for Text Generator Evaluationcited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.