140 research outputs found

    Ask an Expert: Leveraging Language Models to Improve Strategic Reasoning in Goal-Oriented Dialogue Models

    Full text link
    Existing dialogue models may encounter scenarios which are not well-represented in the training data, and as a result generate responses that are unnatural, inappropriate, or unhelpful. We propose the "Ask an Expert" framework in which the model is trained with access to an "expert" which it can consult at each turn. Advice is solicited via a structured dialogue with the expert, and the model is optimized to selectively utilize (or ignore) it given the context and dialogue history. In this work the expert takes the form of an LLM. We evaluate this framework in a mental health support domain, where the structure of the expert conversation is outlined by pre-specified prompts which reflect a reasoning strategy taught to practitioners in the field. Blenderbot models utilizing "Ask an Expert" show quality improvements across all expert sizes, including those with fewer parameters than the dialogue model itself. Our best model provides a āˆ¼10%\sim 10\% improvement over baselines, approaching human-level scores on "engingingness" and "helpfulness" metrics.Comment: Accepted in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 202

    Mind the Gap Between Conversations for Improved Long-Term Dialogue Generation

    Full text link
    Knowing how to end and resume conversations over time is a natural part of communication, allowing for discussions to span weeks, months, or years. The duration of gaps between conversations dictates which topics are relevant and which questions to ask, and dialogue systems which do not explicitly model time may generate responses that are unnatural. In this work we explore the idea of making dialogue models aware of time, and present GapChat, a multi-session dialogue dataset in which the time between each session varies. While the dataset is constructed in real-time, progress on events in speakers' lives is simulated in order to create realistic dialogues occurring across a long timespan. We expose time information to the model and compare different representations of time and event progress. In human evaluation we show that time-aware models perform better in metrics that judge the relevance of the chosen topics and the information gained from the conversation.Comment: Accepted in the Findings of EMNLP 202

    Encoding Generalized Quantifiers in Dependency-based Compositional Semantics

    Get PDF

    A Modular Architecture for the Wide-Coverage Translation of Natural Language Texts into Predicate Logic Formulas

    Get PDF

    Evaluating contributions of natural language parsers to proteinā€“protein interaction extraction

    Get PDF
    Motivation: While text mining technologies for biomedical research have gained popularity as a way to take advantage of the explosive growth of information in text form in biomedical papers, selecting appropriate natural language processing (NLP) tools is still difficult for researchers who are not familiar with recent advances in NLP. This article provides a comparative evaluation of several state-of-the-art natural language parsers, focusing on the task of extracting proteinā€“protein interaction (PPI) from biomedical papers. We measure how each parser, and its output representation, contributes to accuracy improvement when the parser is used as a component in a PPI system

    Does My Rebuttal Matter? Insights from a Major NLP Conference

    Full text link
    Peer review is a core element of the scientific process, particularly in conference-centered fields such as ML and NLP. However, only few studies have evaluated its properties empirically. Aiming to fill this gap, we present a corpus that contains over 4k reviews and 1.2k author responses from ACL-2018. We quantitatively and qualitatively assess the corpus. This includes a pilot study on paper weaknesses given by reviewers and on quality of author responses. We then focus on the role of the rebuttal phase, and propose a novel task to predict after-rebuttal (i.e., final) scores from initial reviews and author responses. Although author responses do have a marginal (and statistically significant) influence on the final scores, especially for borderline papers, our results suggest that a reviewer's final score is largely determined by her initial score and the distance to the other reviewers' initial scores. In this context, we discuss the conformity bias inherent to peer reviewing, a bias that has largely been overlooked in previous research. We hope our analyses will help better assess the usefulness of the rebuttal phase in NLP conferences.Comment: Accepted to NAACL-HLT 2019. Main paper plus supplementary materia
    • ā€¦
    corecore