Generating Information-Seeking Conversations from Unlabeled Documents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthesizing datasets for conversational question answering (CQA) from unlabeled documents remains challenging due to its interactive nature.Moreover, while modeling information needs is an essential key, only few studies have discussed it.In this paper, we introduce a novel framework, **SimSeek**, (**Sim**ulating information-**Seek**ing conversation from unlabeled documents), and compare its two variants.In our baseline, **SimSeek-sym**, a questioner generates follow-up questions upon the predetermined answer by an answerer.On the contrary, **SimSeek-asym** first generates the question and then finds its corresponding answer under the conversational context.Our experiments show that they can synthesize effective training resources for CQA and conversational search tasks.As a result, conversations from **SimSeek-asym** not only make more improvements in our experiments but also are favorably reviewed in a human evaluation.We finally release a large-scale resource of synthetic conversations, **Wiki-SimSeek**, containing 2 million CQA pairs built upon Wikipedia documents.With the dataset, our CQA model achieves the state-of-the-art performance on a recent CQA benchmark, QuAC.The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/naver-ai/simseek
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".