MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386493132 · doi:10.1109/icnlp58431.2023.00057

Context-aware Information Extraction from Multi-thread Business Conversations

2023· article· en· W4386493132 on OpenAlexaff
Nikhil Yelamarthy, Oshin Anand

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsSystems, Applications & Products in Data Processing (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationComputer scienceSentenceParsingThread (computing)Natural language processingInformation extractionContext (archaeology)Artificial intelligenceLinguisticsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper primarily focuses on developing an end-to-end solution which can process multi-threaded conversations and perform information extraction (IE) specific to a domain and intended business task. The challenges of IE in a conversation are a) context understanding, which consists of two elements: topic and sense of expression and b) establishing context flow. Since the target is free-flow dialogue, understanding the change in contexts is crucial. In this research, we attempt to build a solution that can infer and connect these contexts and reflect the same in the extracted information, taking care of things like negotiations. The proposed approach has three main steps; The first step is domain-dependent which performs topic classification at the sentence level. The second step is domain-independent, and it categorizes sentences into different semantic classes, to understand the conversation flow and parse it into multiple conversation threads. In the final step, we carry out morphological parsing to extract the target value, utilizing the predicted sentence class labels along with the conversation flow. A buyer-seller chat conversation is taken as the sample domain and the target IE is towards information for purchase order generation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207