Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Can Your Model Tell a Negation from an Implicature? Unravelling Challenges With Intent Encoders

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

arxiv 2403.04314 v1 pith:QOYMAG66 submitted 2024-03-07 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords intentembeddingmodelsemanticmodelstaskunderstandingconversational
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Conversational systems often rely on embedding models for intent classification and intent clustering tasks. The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), which enable instructional embeddings allowing one to adjust semantics over the embedding space using prompts, are being viewed as a panacea for these downstream conversational tasks. However, traditional evaluation benchmarks rely solely on task metrics that don't particularly measure gaps related to semantic understanding. Thus, we propose an intent semantic toolkit that gives a more holistic view of intent embedding models by considering three tasks -- (1) intent classification, (2) intent clustering, and (3) a novel triplet task. The triplet task gauges the model's understanding of two semantic concepts paramount in real-world conversational systems -- negation and implicature. We observe that current embedding models fare poorly in semantic understanding of these concepts. To address this, we propose a pre-training approach to improve the embedding model by leveraging augmentation with data generated by an auto-regressive model and a contrastive loss term. Our approach improves the semantic understanding of the intent embedding model on the aforementioned linguistic dimensions while slightly effecting their performance on downstream task metrics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Entailed Between the Lines: Incorporating Implication into NLI

    cs.CL 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper formalizes implied entailment as a four-way NLI label, builds the INLI dataset from existing implicature sources, and shows fine-tuned models can label implied vs explicit entailment and generalize across co...

Pith tools