Problem: Training function is imprecise (i.e. BLEU score)
- Training is imperfect because current evaluation metrics (i.e. BLEU Score) measure neither conversation fluency nor task-completion.
- Labels are often inadequate since there are often many valid methods of answering the same query, where the gold label serves as only one such method.
- Training set is incomplete since you they cover only a subset of possible acceptable responses
- LMs train the network to be grammatically coherent, but not necessarily relevant
- Instead, a good method should be able to more closely mimic user satisfaction
- evaluate based on semantic similarity
- take context into account
What does it mean to have high user satisfaction?
- Sentence-level fluency - sentence in isolation is valid and grammatically correct
- Turn-level appropriateness - sentence is natural and makes sense given the user input
- Dialogue-level fluency - sentence is strategically correct in getting the agent towards goal completion
- Overall Variation - sufficient diversity in agent responses
How do we measure the satisfaction?
- Ask the user for feedback after each dialogue –> Very inefficient/annoying
- Hand-craft a “user satisfaction” estimator (e.g. success/length trade-off) –> We usually need to know the user goal to succeed
- Train a “user satisfaction” estimator using user feedback –> We ask for user feedback only when we are uncertain about it
- BLEU Score