Beyond Length: Context-Aware Expansion and Independence as Developmentally Sensitive Evaluation in Child Utterances

Evaluating the quality of children's utterances in adult-child dialogue remains challenging due to insufficient context-sensitive metrics. Common proxies such as Mean Length of Utterance (MLU), lexical diversity (vocd-D), and readability indices (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index) are dominated by length and ignore conversational context, missing aspects of response quality such as reasoning depth, topic maintenance, and discourse planning. We introduce an LLM-as-a-judge framework that first classifies the Previous Adult Utterance Type and then scores the child's response along two axes: Expansion (contextual elaboration and inferential depth) and Independence (the child's contribution to advancing the discourse). These axes reflect fundamental dimensions in child language development, where Expansion captures elaboration, clause combining, and causal and contrastive connectives. Independence captures initiative, topic control, decreasing reliance on adult scaffolding through growing self-regulation, and audience design. We establish developmental validity by showing age-related patterns and demonstrate predictive value by improving age estimation over common baselines. We further confirm semantic sensitivity by detecting differences tied to discourse relations. Our metrics align with human judgments, enabling large-scale evaluation. This shifts child utterance assessment from simply measuring length to evaluating how meaningfully the child's speech contributes to and advances the conversation within its context.

ARES: Alternating Reinforcement Learning and Supervised Fine-Tuning for Enhanced Multi-Modal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Through Diverse AI Feedback

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) excel at comprehending human instructions and demonstrate remarkable results across a broad spectrum of tasks. Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and AI Feedback (RLAIF) further refine LLMs by aligning them with specific preferences. These methods primarily use ranking-based feedback for entire generations. With advanced AI models (Teacher), such as GPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus, we can request various types of detailed feedback that are expensive for humans to provide. We propose a two-stage algorithm ARES that Alternates REinforcement Learning (RL) and Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT). First, we request the Teacher to score how much each sentence contributes to solving the problem in a Chain-of-Thought (CoT). This sentence-level feedback allows us to consider individual valuable segments, providing more granular rewards for the RL procedure. Second, we ask the Teacher to correct the wrong reasoning after the RL stage. The RL procedure requires massive efforts for hyperparameter tuning and often generates errors like repetitive words and incomplete sentences. With the correction feedback, we stabilize the RL fine-tuned model through SFT. We conduct experiments on multi-model dataset ScienceQA and A-OKVQA to demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposal. ARES rationale reasoning achieves around 70% win rate against baseline models judged by GPT-4o. Additionally, we observe that the improved rationale reasoning leads to a 2.5% increase in inference answer accuracy on average for the multi-modal datasets.