REVIEW 1 cited by
Generating Hard-Negative Out-of-Scope Data with ChatGPT for Intent Classification
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
Generating Hard-Negative Out-of-Scope Data with ChatGPT for Intent Classification
read the original abstract
Intent classifiers must be able to distinguish when a user's utterance does not belong to any supported intent to avoid producing incorrect and unrelated system responses. Although out-of-scope (OOS) detection for intent classifiers has been studied, previous work has not yet studied changes in classifier performance against hard-negative out-of-scope utterances (i.e., inputs that share common features with in-scope data, but are actually out-of-scope). We present an automated technique to generate hard-negative OOS data using ChatGPT. We use our technique to build five new hard-negative OOS datasets, and evaluate each against three benchmark intent classifiers. We show that classifiers struggle to correctly identify hard-negative OOS utterances more than general OOS utterances. Finally, we show that incorporating hard-negative OOS data for training improves model robustness when detecting hard-negative OOS data and general OOS data. Our technique, datasets, and evaluation address an important void in the field, offering a straightforward and inexpensive way to collect hard-negative OOS data and improve intent classifiers' robustness.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Training-Free versus Training-Based Intent Classification in LLMs: Accuracy, Robustness, and Failure Modes
Statistical classifiers built on LLM activation norms and coordinates match or beat trained MLP heads on coarse intent routing and resist camouflage better, while MLPs win on fine-grained subfield distinctions.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.