Previous studies evaluate simulated dialog corpora using evaluation measures which can be automatically extracted from the dialog systems’ logs. However, the validity of these automatic measures has not been fully proven. In this study, we first recruit human judges to assess the quality of three simulated dialog corpora and then use human judgments as the gold standard to validate the conclusions drawn from the automatic measures. We observe that it is hard for the human judges to reach good agreement when asked to rate the quality of the dialogs from given perspectives. However, the human ratings give consistent ranking.
