AutoReply: Detecting Nonsense in Dialogue Introspectively with Discriminative Replies
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Existing approaches built separate classifiers to detect nonsense in dialogues. In this paper, we show that without external classifiers, dialogue models can detect errors in their own messages introspectively, by calculating the likelihood of replies that are indicative of poor messages. For example, if an agent believes its partner is likely to respond "I don't understand" to a candidate message, that message may not make sense, so an alternative message should be chosen. We evaluate our approach on a dataset from the game Diplomacy, which contains long dialogues richly grounded in the game state, on which existing models make many errors. We first show that hand-crafted replies can be effective for the task of detecting nonsense in applications as complex as Diplomacy. We then design AutoReply, an algorithm to search for such discriminative replies automatically, given a small number of annotated dialogue examples. We find that AutoReply-generated replies outperform handcrafted replies and perform on par with carefully fine-tuned large supervised models. Results also show that one single reply without much computation overheads can also detect dialogue nonsense reasonably well.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Nov 2022.
Builds on
27 of 32 references.
References · 27
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,893
- 2021Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generationcited by 3,915
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,916
- 2021Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processingcited by 2,234
- 2019Language Models as Knowledge Bases?cited by 1,936
- 2020Making Pre-trained Language Models Better Few-shot Learnerscited by 1,256
- 2019Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLPcited by 1,254
- 2021Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Modelscited by 966
- 2019How Can We Know What Language Models Know?cited by 959
- 2019DialoGPT: Large-Scale Generative Pre-training for Conversational Response Generationcited by 842
- 2019Universal Adversarial Triggers for Attacking and Analyzing NLPcited by 722
15 more
- 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 722
- 2021Self-Diagnosis and Self-Debiasing: A Proposal for Reducing Corpus-Based Bias in NLPcited by 337
- 2019The Second Conversational Intelligence Challenge (ConvAI2)cited by 179
- 2020Unsupervised Evaluation of Interactive Dialog with DialoGPTcited by 139
- 2018Dialogue Natural Language Inferencecited by 135
- 2019Learning to Speak and Act in a Fantasy Text Adventure Gamecited by 122
- 2019Don't Say That! Making Inconsistent Dialogue Unlikely with Unlikelihood Trainingcited by 110
- 2021Anticipating Safety Issues in E2E Conversational AI: Framework and Toolingcited by 78
- 2020I like fish, especially dolphins: Addressing Contradictions in Dialogue Modelingcited by 68
- 2021Modeling Strong and Human-Like Gameplay with KL-Regularized Searchcited by 50
- 2020Human-Level Performance in No-Press Diplomacy via Equilibrium Searchcited by 41
- 2019No Press Diplomacy: Modeling Multi-Agent Gameplaycited by 38
- 2021No-Press Diplomacy from Scratchcited by 31
- 2020Refine and Imitate: Reducing Repetition and Inconsistency in Persuasion Dialogues via Reinforcement Learning and Human Demonstrationcited by 20
- 2015Linguistic Harbingers of Betrayal: A Case Study on an Online Strategy Gamecited by 16
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1.
2 papers.