跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+5597新增论文
+4710其中 AI 相关
+108已有论文修订
+122新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-05 02:52 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 03:45各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-04 03:47 — 2026-11-05 03:47(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-05 02:52最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 03:45库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-04 08:00

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

14,274 已收录论文12,385 AI 相关3,088 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-05 02:50(北京时间)
首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.2006ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

Simple Agents, Biased Judges: Efficient Multi-Party Dialogue Generation & The Evaluation Gap

Kunal Samanta, Faisal Tareque Shohan, Amine Trabelsi Université de Sherbrooke, Richard Khoury Universite Laval, Université Laval

Multi-party social dialogue remains underexplored in the literature,in part due to the difficulty and cost of evaluation. As a result,recent work on synthetic dialogue generation often relies on automatedmetrics and LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks, despite limited evidence thatsuch judges reflect human preferences in social settings. In this work,we introduce a lightweight and controllable multi-party dialoguegeneration framework (MPOD) as an experimental instrument forstudying generation and evaluation in social interaction. Using thisframework, we conduct human evaluations of open-domain multi-partydialogue simulation and directly compare human judgments againststate-of-the-art LLM judges. Across 319 pairwise comparisons, weobserve near-random agreement between humans and automated judges(Cohen’s \kappa \approx 0.11), driven by systematic behaviorsincluding extreme tie aversion and strong sensitivity toassistant-style verbosity. Crucially, human–human inter-annotatoragreement (\kappa = 0.29) is substantially higher than human–LLMagreement. To isolate themechanism underlying this misalignment, we introduce a controlledTransplant Ablation, showing that LLM judges consistentlyprefer conversations containing a single proprietary, assistant-styleagent. Additional stress tests show that judges prefer GPT-styleconversations even when utterance order is randomly shuffled,indicating insensitivity to conversational structure and coherence.Our findings provide controlled evidence that currentinstruction-tuned LLM judges do not reliably reflect human preferences for naturalness, engagingness, and overall quality in multi-party social dialogue, calling into question their widespreaduse for validating synthetic conversational data.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表

ACL Anthology · ACL 2026 ↗PDF ↗