Neural models trained for next utterance generation in dialogue task learn to mimic the n-gram sequences in the training set with training objectives like negative log-likelihood (NLL) or cross-entropy. Such commonly used training objectives do not f
oster generating alternate responses to a context. But, the effects of minimizing an alternate training objective that fosters a model to generate alternate response and score it on semantic similarity has not been well studied. We hypothesize that a language generation model can improve on its diversity by learning to generate alternate text during training and minimizing a semantic loss as an auxiliary objective. We explore this idea on two different sized data sets on the task of next utterance generation in goal oriented dialogues. We make two observations (1) minimizing a semantic objective improved diversity in responses in the smaller data set (Frames) but only as-good-as minimizing the NLL in the larger data set (MultiWoZ) (2) large language model embeddings can be more useful as a semantic loss objective than as initialization for token embeddings.
Predicting the next utterance in dialogue is contingent on encoding of users' input text to generate appropriate and relevant response in data-driven approaches. Although the semantic and syntactic quality of the language generated is evaluated, more
often than not, the encoded representation of input is not evaluated. As the representation of the encoder is essential for predicting the appropriate response, evaluation of encoder representation is a challenging yet important problem. In this work, we showcase evaluating the text generated through human or automatic metrics is not sufficient to appropriately evaluate soundness of the language understanding of dialogue models and, to that end, propose a set of probe tasks to evaluate encoder representation of different language encoders commonly used in dialogue models. From experiments, we observe that some of the probe tasks are easier and some are harder for even sophisticated model architectures to learn. And, through experiments we observe that RNN based architectures have lower performance on automatic metrics on text generation than transformer model but perform better than the transformer model on the probe tasks indicating that RNNs might preserve task information better than the Transformers.
