MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418993857 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10984

Multiresolution Recurrent Neural Networks: An Application to Dialogue Response Generation

2017· article· en· W2418993857 on OpenAlexaff
Iulian Vlad Serban, Tim Klinger, Gerald Tesauro, Kartik Talamadupula, Bowen Zhou, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMargin (machine learning)Recurrent neural networkSequence (biology)Artificial intelligenceSemantics (computer science)Representation (politics)Artificial neural networkAbstractionMachine learningProcess (computing)Natural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a new class of models called multiresolution recurrent neural networks, which explicitly model natural language generation at multiple levels of abstraction. The models extend the sequence-to-sequence framework to generate two parallel stochastic processes: a sequence of high-level coarse tokens, and a sequence of natural language words (e.g. sentences). The coarse sequences follow a latent stochastic process with a factorial representation, which helps the models generalize to new examples. The coarse sequences can also incorporate task-specific knowledge, when available. In our experiments, the coarse sequences are extracted using automatic procedures, which are designed to capture compositional structure and semantics. These procedures enable training the multiresolution recurrent neural networks by maximizing the exact joint log-likelihood over both sequences. We apply the models to dialogue response generation in the technical support domain and compare them with several competing models. The multiresolution recurrent neural networks outperform competing models by a substantial margin, achieving state-of-the-art results according to both a human evaluation study and automatic evaluation metrics. Furthermore, experiments show the proposed models generate more fluent, relevant and goal-oriented responses.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations162
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207