Identifying Untrustworthy Samples: Data Filtering for Open-domain Dialogues with Bayesian Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Being able to reply with a related, fluent, and informative response is an indispensable requirement for building high-quality conversational agents. In order to generate better responses, some approaches have been proposed, such as feeding extra information by collecting large-scale datasets with human annotations, designing neural conversational models (NCMs) with complex architecture and loss functions, or filtering out untrustworthy samples based on a dialogue attribute, e.g., Relatedness or Genericness. In this paper, we follow the third research branch and present a data filtering method for open-domain dialogues, which identifies untrustworthy samples from training data with a quality measure that linearly combines seven dialogue attributes. The attribute weights are obtained via Bayesian Optimization (BayesOpt) that aims to optimize an objective function for dialogue generation iteratively on the validation set. Then we score training samples with the quality measure, sort them in descending order, and filter out those at the bottom. Furthermore, to accelerate the "filter-train-evaluate" iterations involved in BayesOpt on large-scale datasets, we propose a training framework that integrates maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and negative training method (NEG). The training method updates parameters of a trained NCMs on two small sets with newly maintained and removed samples, respectively. Specifically, MLE is applied to maximize the log-likelihood of newly maintained samples, while NEG is used to minimize the log-likelihood of newly removed ones. Experimental results on two datasets show that our method can effectively identify untrustworthy samples, and NCMs trained on the filtered datasets achieve better performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".