MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Context-Aware in an Emerging Area in Conversational Agents: A Comparative Study of Recurrent Neural Networks and Transformer Models for Intent Detection

2024· preprint· en· W4393183651 on OpenAlexaff
Abdellah Chehri, Mourad Jbene, Rachid Saadane, Smail Tigani, Gwanggil Jeon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRecurrent neural networkTransformerNatural language understandingArtificial intelligenceDeep learningNatural languageArtificial neural networkHuman–computer interactionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The idea of a Cyber-Physical-Social System, or CPSS for short, is a relatively new concept that has emerged as a response to the requirement to comprehend the influence that Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) have on people and vice versa. Conversational assistants (CAs), also called bots, are dedicated to oral or written communication. Over time, the CAs have gradually diversified to today touch various fields such as e-commerce, healthcare, tourism, fashion, travel, and many others sectors. Natural-language understanding (NLU) is fundamental in the Natural Language Processing (NLP) field. Identifying user intents from natural language utterances is a crucial step in conversational systems, and the diversity in user utterances makes intent detection even a challenging problem. Recently, with the emergence of Deep Neural Networks. New State of the Art (SOA) results have been achieved for different NLP tasks. Recurrent Neural networks (RNNs) and recent Transformer architectures are two major players in those improvements. In addition, RNNs have been playing an increasingly important role in sequence modeling in different application areas. On the other hand, Transformer models are new architectures that benefit from the attention mechanism, extensive training datasets, and compute power. First, this review paper presents a comprehensive overview of RNN and Transformer models. Then, a comparative study of the performance of different RNNs and Transformer architectures for the specific task of intent recognition for CAs which is a fundamental task of NLU.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207