CoReflect: A Reflective Co-Evolution Framework for Improving Conversational Evaluation

With the rapid advancement of large language models, evaluating human-likeness in open-ended conversation has become increasingly important. However, human-likeness is a form of tacit knowledge that humans perceive intuitively, yet the underlying criteria resist explicit formulation. Human judgments vary widely, with strong agreement on some cases and legitimate disagreement on others. Meanwhile, the criteria behind human judgments remain implicit, leaving no clear basis for constructing cases. Further, what counts as human-likeness is not static, but evolving with model capability and human expectations. Despite progress in evaluation methods such as expert-authored benchmarks, Reward Models, and self-evolving benchmarks, none addresses all three challenges simultaneously. Therefore, we propose GrowLoop, a self-evolving conversation evaluation system that continuously adapts as models advance and scenarios shift. Starting from minimal human seed annotations, LLM agents iteratively extract and refine evaluation rubrics through Heuristic Learning. Human-AI agreement is required where annotators converge, while only plausibility is expected where they diverge. Moreover, the Rubric-Case co-evolution mechanism enables continuous evolution. When the evaluation target shifts, new human seeds expand the system's coverage accordingly. When applied to human-likeness evaluation in open-ended conversation, the AI judge guided by these rubrics not only substantially outperforms existing methods in alignment with human judgments, but also uncovers issues that annotators overlook. The resulting benchmark effectively discriminates models across capability tiers and reveals where they fall short, while generalizing to new scenarios and adapting as models advance. Our work shifts the benchmarking paradigm from manual updates or difficulty scaling to comprehensive, continuous self-evolution.

Evaluating multi-turn dialogue systems remains challenging because response quality depends not only on the current prompt, but also on previously established entities, claims, and conversational commitments. Existing automatic evaluators, including LLM-as-a-judge frameworks and embedding-based metrics, largely rely on flat or turn-isolated representations, making them less effective at detecting long-range issues such as contradiction, topic drift, and entity inconsistency. To address this, we propose SKG-Eval, a quasi-deterministic and interpretable framework that models dialogue as an evolving Semantic Knowledge Graph (SKG) of entities, relations, and commitments across turns. The framework incrementally updates the graph through structured triple extraction and computes three complementary signals: (i) local relevance, measuring alignment with the current prompt and optional reference; (ii) historical consistency, evaluating how newly introduced information connects to prior conversational context using graph-based and embedding-driven signals; and (iii) logical coherence, assessed by a geometric contradiction engine that detects cross-turn conflicts without relying on NLI models or LLM judges. These signals are adaptively fused and aggregated into a length-invariant session score via recency-weighted trend analysis. Across multiple benchmarks, SKG-Eval achieves higher correlation with human judgments and substantially improves detection of long-range inconsistencies in extended conversations. In addition, the framework produces explicit contradiction certificates and deterministic scores for fixed inputs, enabling reproducible and auditable evaluation. Overall, our results suggest that structured externalized state tracking through semantic knowledge graphs provides a scalable alternative to implicit reasoning in LLM-based dialogue evaluators.

In cognitive science and linguistic theory, dialogue is not seen as a chain of independent utterances but rather as a joint activity sustained by coherence, consistency, and shared understanding. However, many systems for open-domain and personalized dialogue use surface-level similarity metrics (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE, F1) as one of their main reporting measures, which fail to capture these deeper aspects of conversational quality. We re-examine a notable retrieval-augmented framework for personalized dialogue, LAPDOG, as a case study for evaluation methodology. Using both human and LLM-based judges, we identify limitations in current evaluation practices, including corrupted dialogue histories, contradictions between retrieved stories and persona, and incoherent response generation. Our results show that human and LLM judgments align closely but diverge from lexical similarity metrics, underscoring the need for cognitively grounded evaluation methods. Broadly, this work charts a path toward more reliable assessment frameworks for retrieval-augmented dialogue systems that better reflect the principles of natural human communication.