Filtering before Iteratively Referring for Knowledge-Grounded Response Selection in Retrieval-Based Chatbots
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The challenges of building knowledgegrounded retrieval-based chatbots lie in how to ground a conversation on its background knowledge and how to match response candidates with both context and knowledge simultaneously. This paper proposes a method named Filtering before Iteratively REferring (FIRE) for this task. In this method, a context filter and a knowledge filter are first built, which derive knowledge-aware context representations and context-aware knowledge representations respectively by global and bidirectional attention. Besides, the entries irrelevant to the conversation are discarded by the knowledge filter. After that, iteratively referring is performed between context and response representations as well as between knowledge and response representations, in order to collect deep matching features for scoring response candidates. Experimental results show that FIRE outperforms previous methods by margins larger than 2.8% and 4.1% on the PERSONA-CHAT dataset with original and revised personas respectively, and margins larger than 3.1% on the CMU DoG dataset in terms of top-1 accuracy. We also show that FIRE is more interpretable by visualizing the knowledge grounding process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it