← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.2006 · 记录 #1
Simple Agents, Biased Judges: Efficient Multi-Party Dialogue Generation & The Evaluation Gap
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 21:46
摘要
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.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
Simple Agents, Biased Judges: Efficient Multi-Party Dialogue Generation & The Evaluation Gap
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.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗