REVIEW 3 cited by
Modeling Multi-turn Conversation with Deep Utterance Aggregation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Multi-turn conversation understanding is a major challenge for building intelligent dialogue systems. This work focuses on retrieval-based response matching for multi-turn conversation whose related work simply concatenates the conversation utterances, ignoring the interactions among previous utterances for context modeling. In this paper, we formulate previous utterances into context using a proposed deep utterance aggregation model to form a fine-grained context representation. In detail, a self-matching attention is first introduced to route the vital information in each utterance. Then the model matches a response with each refined utterance and the final matching score is obtained after attentive turns aggregation. Experimental results show our model outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on three multi-turn conversation benchmarks, including a newly introduced e-commerce dialogue corpus.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
LIMO: Less is More for Reasoning
LIMO achieves 63.3% on AIME24 and 95.6% on MATH500 via supervised fine-tuning on roughly 1% of the data used by prior models, supporting the claim that minimal strategic examples suffice when pre-training has already ...
-
Semantics-aware BERT for Language Understanding
Feeding semantic role labels into BERT alongside the text improves performance on ten NLU benchmarks over the BERT baseline.
-
SG-Net: Syntax-Guided Machine Reading Comprehension
Masking self-attention to syntactic ancestors and averaging it with BERT attention improves SQuAD 2.0 exact match from 84.1 to 85.1 and RACE accuracy from 72.6 to 74.2.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.