arXiv (All)
open access
Calibrating LLM Judges for Human and AI Conversations
Measuring how successful a conversation is remains difficult, even for humans judging spoken dialogue. We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs as pointwise and pairwise judges of conversational success on CANDOR, finding pointwise scoring correlates moderately with human ratings, while pairwise comparison
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- SAGE: State-Grounded, Abstention-Aware Evaluation of Task-Oriented Dialogue Agents#819882
- SAGE: State-Grounded, Abstention-Aware Evaluation of Task-Oriented Dialogue Agents#809886
- Shaping Opinion: Quantifying the Psychological Impact of Autonomous Multi-Agent LLM Interactions#1141691
- Evaluating LLMs on Conversational Text-to-SQL under Chain Ambiguity and Intent Drift#798188
- Evaluating LLMs on Conversational Text-to-SQL under Chain Ambiguity and Intent Drift#796775
Record · ID 1077360
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive