Agents are increasingly capable of automating software tasks, but can they teach humans how to use software themselves? We introduce DigitalCoach, a multimodal dataset of 72 human expert-novice computer use coaching sessions consisting of 22,752 dialogue turns grounded in 28.1 hours of screen and input event recordings across 5 software applications. We then use DigitalCoach to evaluate whether state-of-the-art models can teach humans how to use computers. Our automated evaluation shows that models differ from humans in how they coach: models provide more direct instructions, but fewer explanations, error diagnoses, and knowledge-check questions. When we fix the coaching method, models produce utterances that are similar to human references, but poorly grounded in visual context. Our interactive evaluation confirms that model coaches cause learners to passively follow instructions without deeper engagement and fall short in visual grounding. DigitalCoach lays a foundation for collaborative and proactive computer use coaching agents. Data and code are available at https://project-digital-coach.vercel.app

Dialogue systems pretrained with large language models generate locally coherent responses, but lack fine-grained control over responses necessary to achieve specific goals. A promising method to control response generation is exemplar-based generation, in which models edit exemplar responses that are retrieved from training data, or hand-written to strategically address discourse-level goals, to fit new dialogue contexts. We present an Exemplar-based Dialogue Generation model, EDGE, that uses the semantic frames present in exemplar responses to guide response generation. We show that controlling dialogue generation based on the semantic frames of exemplars improves the coherence of generated responses, while preserving semantic meaning and conversation goals present in exemplar responses.

The aim of this paper is to mitigate the shortcomings of automatic evaluation of open-domain dialog systems through multi-reference evaluation. Existing metrics have been shown to correlate poorly with human judgement, particularly in open-domain dialog. One alternative is to collect human annotations for evaluation, which can be expensive and time consuming. To demonstrate the effectiveness of multi-reference evaluation, we augment the test set of DailyDialog with multiple references. A series of experiments show that the use of multiple references results in improved correlation between several automatic metrics and human judgement for both the quality and the diversity of system output.