Chinese Emotional Dialogue Response Generation via Reinforcement Learning
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
In an open-domain dialogue system, recognition and expression of emotions are the key factors for success. Most of the existing research related to Chinese dialogue systems aims at improving the quality of content but ignores the expression of human emotions. In this article, we propose a Chinese emotional dialogue response generation algorithm based on reinforcement learning that can generate responses not only according to content but also according to emotion. In the proposed method, a multi-emotion classification model is first used to add emotion labels to the corpus of post-response pairs. Then, with the help of reinforcement learning, the reward function is constructed based on two aspects, namely, emotion and content. Among the generated candidates, the system selects the one with long-term success as the best reply. At the same time, to avoid safe responses and diversify dialogue, a diversity beam search algorithm is applied in the decoding process. The comparative experiments demonstrate that the proposed model achieves satisfactory results according to both automatic and human evaluations.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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