PMIScore: An Unsupervised Approach to Quantify Dialogue Engagement

Yongkang Guo, Zhihuan Huang, Yuqing Kong · Mar 14, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

High dialogue engagement is a crucial indicator of an effective conversation. A reliable measure of engagement could help benchmark large language models, enhance the effectiveness of human-computer interactions, or improve personal communication skills. However, quantifying engagement is challenging, since it is subjective and lacks a "gold standard". This paper proposes PMIScore, an efficient unsupervised approach to quantify dialogue engagement. It uses pointwise mutual information (PMI), which is the probability of generating a response conditioning on the conversation history. Thus, PMIScore offers a clear interpretation of engagement. As directly computing PMI is intractable due to the complexity of dialogues, PMIScore learned it through a dual form of divergence. The algorithm includes generating positive and negative dialogue pairs, extracting embeddings by large language models (LLMs), and training a small neural network using a mutual information loss function. We validated PMIScore on both synthetic and real-world datasets. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of PMIScore in PMI estimation and the reasonableness of the PMI metric itself.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 25%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.