MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287891193 · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.wordplay-1.4

A Sequence Modelling Approach to Question Answering in Text-Based Games

2022· article· en· W4287891193 on OpenAlexaff
G. B. Furman, Edan Toledo, Jonathan P. Shock, Jan Buys

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMultimodal Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuestion answeringComputer scienceTransformerReinforcement learningArtificial intelligenceMachine learningBenchmark (surveying)Language modelTask (project management)Natural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interactive Question Answering (IQA) requires an intelligent agent to interact with a dynamic environment in order to gather information necessary to answer a question.IQA tasks have been proposed as means of training systems to develop language or visual comprehension abilities.To this end, the Question Answering with Interactive Text (QAit) task was created to produce and benchmark interactive agents capable of seeking information and answering questions in unseen environments.While prior work has exclusively focused on IQA as a reinforcement learning problem, such methods suffer from low sample efficiency and poor accuracy in zero-shot evaluation.In this paper, we propose the use of the recently proposed Decision Transformer architecture to provide improvements upon prior baselines.By utilising a causally masked GPT-2 Transformer for command generation and a BERT model for question answer prediction, we show that the Decision Transformer achieves performance greater than or equal to current state-of-the-art RL baselines on the QAit task in a sample efficient manner.In addition, these results are achievable by training on sub-optimal random trajectories, therefore not requiring the use of online agents to gather data.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207