Reciprocal Learning of Knowledge Retriever and Response Ranker for Knowledge-Grounded Conversations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grounding dialogue agents with knowledge documents has sparked increased attention in both academia and industry. Recently, a growing body of work is trying to build retrieval-based knowledge-grounded dialogue systems. While promising, these approaches require collecting pairs of dialogue context and the corresponding ground-truth knowledge sentences that contain the information regarding the dialogue context. Unfortunately, hand-labeling data to that end is time-consuming, and many datasets and applications lack such knowledge annotations. In this paper, we propose a reciprocal learning approach to jointly optimize a knowledge retriever and a response ranker for knowledge-grounded response retrieval without ground-truth knowledge labels. Specifically, the knowledge retriever uses the feedback from the response ranker as pseudo supervised signals of knowledge retrieval for updating its parameters, while the response ranker also receives the top-ranked knowledge sentences from knowledge retriever for optimization. Evaluation results on two public benchmarks show that our model can significantly outperform previous state-of-the-art methods.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 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 it