MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786472750 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11332

Complex Sequential Question Answering: Towards Learning to Converse Over Linked Question Answer Pairs with a Knowledge Graph

2018· article· en· W2786472750 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceQuestion answeringConverseDialog boxAsk priceConversationNatural language processingContext (archaeology)Artificial intelligenceCoreferenceEllipsis (linguistics)ParsingGraphInformation retrievalLinguisticsWorld Wide WebTheoretical computer scienceResolution (logic)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While conversing with chatbots, humans typically tend to ask many questions, a significant portion of which can be answered by referring to large-scale knowledge graphs (KG). While Question Answering (QA) and dialog systems have been studied independently, there is a need to study them closely to evaluate such real-world scenarios faced by bots involving both these tasks. Towards this end, we introduce the task of Complex Sequential QA which combines the two tasks of (i) answering factual questions through complex inferencing over a realistic-sized KG of millions of entities, and (ii) learning to converse through a series of coherently linked QA pairs. Through a labor intensive semi-automatic process, involving in-house and crowdsourced workers, we created a dataset containing around 200K dialogs with a total of 1.6M turns. Further, unlike existing large scale QA datasets which contain simple questions that can be answered from a single tuple, the questions in our dialogs require a larger subgraph of the KG. Specifically, our dataset has questions which require logical, quantitative, and comparative reasoning as well as their combinations. This calls for models which can: (i) parse complex natural language questions, (ii) use conversation context to resolve coreferences and ellipsis in utterances, (iii) ask for clarifications for ambiguous queries, and finally (iv) retrieve relevant subgraphs of the KG to answer such questions. However, our experiments with a combination of state of the art dialog and QA models show that they clearly do not achieve the above objectives and are inadequate for dealing with such complex real world settings. We believe that this new dataset coupled with the limitations of existing models as reported in this paper should encourage further research in Complex Sequential QA.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.234 · 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