DialogBERT: Discourse-Aware Response Generation via Learning to Recover and Rank Utterances
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
Recent advances in pre-trained language models have significantly improved neural response generation. However, existing methods usually view the dialogue context as a linear sequence of tokens and learn to generate the next word through token-level self-attention. Such token-level encoding hinders the exploration of discourse-level coherence among utterances. This paper presents DialogBERT, a novel conversational response generation model that enhances previous PLM-based dialogue models. DialogBERT employs a hierarchical Transformer architecture. To efficiently capture the discourse-level coherence among utterances, we propose two training objectives, including masked utterance regression and distributed utterance order ranking in analogy to the original BERT training. Experiments on three multi-turn conversation datasets show that our approach remarkably outperforms three baselines, such as BART and DialoGPT, in terms of quantitative evaluation. The human evaluation suggests that DialogBERT generates more coherent, informative, and human-like responses than the baselines with significant margins.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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