Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userImproving Limited Labeled Dialogue State Tracking with Self-Supervision
94
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Chien-Sheng Wu
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Existing dialogue state tracking (DST) models require plenty of labeled data. However, collecting high-quality labels is costly, especially when the number of domains increases. In this paper, we address a practical DST problem that is rarely discussed, i.e., learning efficiently with limited labeled data. We present and investigate two self-supervised objectives: preserving latent consistency and modeling conversational behavior. We encourage a DST model to have consistent latent distributions given a perturbed input, making it more robust to an unseen scenario. We also add an auxiliary utterance generation task, modeling a potential correlation between conversational behavior and dialogue states. The experimental results show that our proposed self-supervised signals can improve joint goal accuracy by 8.95% when only 1% labeled data is used on the MultiWOZ dataset. We can achieve an additional 1.76% improvement if some unlabeled data is jointly trained as semi-supervised learning. We analyze and visualize how our proposed self-supervised signals help the DST task and hope to stimulate future data-efficient DST research.
rate research
Read More
Dialogue state tracking (DST) is a pivotal component in task-oriented dialogue systems. While it is relatively easy for a DST model to capture belief states in short conversations, the task of DST becomes more challenging as the length of a dialogue increases due to the injection of more distracting contexts. In this paper, we aim to improve the overall performance of DST with a special focus on handling longer dialogues. We tackle this problem from three perspectives: 1) A model designed to enable hierarchical slot status prediction; 2) Balanced training procedure for generic and task-specific language understanding; 3) Data perturbation which enhances the models ability in handling longer conversations. We conduct experiments on the MultiWOZ benchmark, and demonstrate the effectiveness of each component via a set of ablation tests, especially on longer conversations.
Sequence-to-sequence models have been applied to a wide variety of NLP tasks, but how to properly use them for dialogue state tracking has not been systematically investigated. In this paper, we study this problem from the perspectives of pre-training objectives as well as the formats of context representations. We demonstrate that the choice of pre-training objective makes a significant difference to the state tracking quality. In particular, we find that masked span prediction is more effective than auto-regressive language modeling. We also explore using Pegasus, a span prediction-based pre-training objective for text summarization, for the state tracking model. We found that pre-training for the seemingly distant summarization task works surprisingly well for dialogue state tracking. In addition, we found that while recurrent state context representation works also reasonably well, the model may have a hard time recovering from earlier mistakes. We conducted experiments on the MultiWOZ 2.1-2.4, WOZ 2.0, and DSTC2 datasets with consistent observations.
In this paper, we aim to improve abstractive dialogue summarization quality and, at the same time, enable granularity control. Our model has two primary components and stages: 1) a two-stage generation strategy that generates a preliminary summary sketch serving as the basis for the final summary. This summary sketch provides a weakly supervised signal in the form of pseudo-labeled interrogative pronoun categories and key phrases extracted using a constituency parser. 2) A simple strategy to control the granularity of the final summary, in that our model can automatically determine or control the number of generated summary sentences for a given dialogue by predicting and highlighting different text spans from the source text. Our model achieves state-of-the-art performance on the largest dialogue summarization corpus SAMSum, with as high as 50.79 in ROUGE-L score. In addition, we conduct a case study and show competitive human evaluation results and controllability to human-annotated summaries.
MultiWOZ 2.0 (Budzianowski et al., 2018) is a recently released multi-domain dialogue dataset spanning 7 distinct domains and containing over 10,000 dialogues. Though immensely useful and one of the largest resources of its kind to-date, MultiWOZ 2.0 has a few shortcomings. Firstly, there is substantial noise in the dialogue state annotations and dialogue utterances which negatively impact the performance of state-tracking models. Secondly, follow-up work (Lee et al., 2019) has augmented the original dataset with user dialogue acts. This leads to multiple co-existe
MultiWOZ is a well-known task-oriented dialogue dataset containing over 10,000 annotated dialogues spanning 8 domains. It is extensively used as a benchmark for dialogue state tracking. However, recent works have reported presence of substantial noise in the dialogue state annotations. MultiWOZ 2.1 identified and fixed many of these erroneous annotations and user utterances, resulting in an improved version of this dataset. This work introduces MultiWOZ 2.2, which is a yet another improved version of this dataset. Firstly, we identify and fix dialogue state annotation errors across 17.3% of the utterances on top of MultiWOZ 2.1. Secondly, we redefine the ontology by disallowing vocabularies of slots with a large number of possible values (e.g., restaurant name, time of booking). In addition, we introduce slot span annotations for these slots to standardize them across recent models, which previously used custom string matching heuristics to generate them. We also benchmark a few state of the art dialogue state tracking models on the corrected dataset to facilitate comparison for future work. In the end, we discuss best practices for dialogue data collection that can help avoid annotation errors.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
