An open challenge in constructing dialogue systems is developing methods for automatically learning dialogue strategies from large amounts of unlabelled data. Recent work has proposed Next-Utterance-Classification (NUC) as a surrogate task for building dialogue systems from text data. In this paper we investigate the performance of humans on this task to validate the relevance of NUC as a method of evaluation. Our results show three main findings: (1) humans are able to correctly classify responses at a rate much better than chance, thus confirming that the task is feasible, (2) human performance levels vary across task domains (we consider 3 datasets) and expertise levels (novice vs experts), thus showing that a range of performance is possible on this type of task, (3) automated dialogue systems built using state-of-the-art machine learning methods have similar performance to the human novices, but worse than the experts, thus confirming the utility of this class of tasks for driving further research in automated dialogue systems.
Recent evaluation metrics for unsupervised dialogue systems include BLEU @cite_13 and METEOR @cite_15 , which compare the similarity between response generated by the model, and the actual response of the participant, conditioned on some context of the conversation. Word perplexity, which computes a function of the probability of re-generating examples from the training corpus, is also used. However, such metrics have been shown to correlate very weakly with human judgement of the produced responses @cite_12 . They also suffer from several other drawbacks @cite_12 , including low scores, lack of interpretability, and inability to account for the vast space of acceptable outputs in natural conversation.
@cite_15 @cite_13 @cite_12
2328886022 2729046720 2593751037 2122514299
We investigate evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation systems where supervised labels, such as task completion, are not available. Recent works in response generation have adopted metrics from machine translation to compare a model's generated response to a single target response. We show that these metrics correlate very weakly with human judgements in the non-technical Twitter domain, and not at all in the technical Ubuntu domain. We provide quantitative and qualitative results highlighting specific weaknesses in existing metrics, and provide recommendations for future development of better automatic evaluation metrics for dialogue systems. Automated metrics such as BLEU are widely used in the machine translation literature. They have also been used recently in the dialogue community for evaluating dialogue response generation. However, previous work in dialogue response generation has shown that these metrics do not correlate strongly with human judgment in the non task-oriented dialogue setting. Task-oriented dialogue responses are expressed on narrower domains and exhibit lower diversity. It is thus reasonable to think that these automated metrics would correlate well with human judgment in the task-oriented setting where the generation task consists of translating dialogue acts into a sentence. We conduct an empirical study to confirm whether this is the case. Our findings indicate that these automated metrics have stronger correlation with human judgments in the task-oriented setting compared to what has been observed in the non task-oriented setting. We also observe that these metrics correlate even better for datasets which provide multiple ground truth reference sentences. In addition, we show that some of the currently available corpora for task-oriented language generation can be solved with simple models and advocate for more challenging datasets. In this paper, we construct and train end-to-end neural network-based dialogue systems using an updated version of the recent Ubuntu Dialogue Corpus, a dataset containing almost 1 million multi-turn dialogues, with a total of over 7 million utterances and 100 million words. This dataset is interesting because of its size, long context lengths, and technical nature; thus, it can be used to train large models directly from data with minimal feature engineering, which can be both time consuming and expensive. We provide baselines in two different environments: one where models are trained to maximize the log-likelihood of a generated utterance conditioned on the context of the conversation, and one where models are trained to select the correct next response from a list of candidate responses. These are both evaluated on a recall task that we call Next Utterance Classification (NUC), as well as other generation-specific metrics. Finally, we provide a qualitative error analysis to help determine the most promising directions for future research on the Ubuntu Dialogue Corpus, and for end-to-end dialogue systems in general. Most previous work on trainable language generation has focused on two paradigms: (a) using a generation decisions of an existing generator. Both approaches rely on the existence of a handcrafted generation component, which is likely to limit their scalability to new domains. The first contribution of this article is to present Bagel, a fully data-driven generation method that treats the language generation task as a search for the most likely sequence of semantic concepts and realization phrases, according to Factored Language Models (FLMs). As domain utterances are not readily available for most natural language generation tasks, a large creative effort is required to produce the data necessary to represent human linguistic variation for nontrivial domains. This article is based on the assumption that learning to produce paraphrases can be facilitated by collecting data from a large sample of untrained annotators using crowdsourcing—rather than a few domain experts—by relying on a coarse meaning representation. A second contribution of this article is to use crowdsourced data to show how dialogue naturalness can be improved by learning to vary the output utterances generated for a given semantic input. Two data-driven methods for generating paraphrases in dialogue are presented: (a) by sampling from the n-best list of realizations produced by Bagel's FLM reranker; and (b) by learning a structured perceptron predicting whether candidate realizations are valid paraphrases. We train Bagel on a set of 1,956 utterances produced by 137 annotators, which covers 10 types of dialogue acts and 128 semantic concepts in a tourist information system for Cambridge. An automated evaluation shows that Bagel outperforms utterance class LM baselines on this domain. A human evaluation of 600 resynthesized dialogue extracts shows that Bagel's FLM output produces utterances comparable to a handcrafted baseline, whereas the perceptron classifier performs worse. Interestingly, human judges find the system sampling from the n-best list to be more natural than a system always returning the first-best utterance. The judges are also more willing to interact with the n-best system in the future. These results suggest that capturing the large variation found in human language using data-driven methods is beneficial for dialogue interaction.