Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Annotation Inconsistency and Entity Bias in MultiWOZ

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 2105.14150 v4 pith:XYCU4U6R submitted 2021-05-29 cs.CL

Annotation Inconsistency and Entity Bias in MultiWOZ

classification cs.CL
keywords dialogentitybiasannotationdialogsentitiestestbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

MultiWOZ is one of the most popular multi-domain task-oriented dialog datasets, containing 10K+ annotated dialogs covering eight domains. It has been widely accepted as a benchmark for various dialog tasks, e.g., dialog state tracking (DST), natural language generation (NLG), and end-to-end (E2E) dialog modeling. In this work, we identify an overlooked issue with dialog state annotation inconsistencies in the dataset, where a slot type is tagged inconsistently across similar dialogs leading to confusion for DST modeling. We propose an automated correction for this issue, which is present in a whopping 70% of the dialogs. Additionally, we notice that there is significant entity bias in the dataset (e.g., "cambridge" appears in 50% of the destination cities in the train domain). The entity bias can potentially lead to named entity memorization in generative models, which may go unnoticed as the test set suffers from a similar entity bias as well. We release a new test set with all entities replaced with unseen entities. Finally, we benchmark joint goal accuracy (JGA) of the state-of-the-art DST baselines on these modified versions of the data. Our experiments show that the annotation inconsistency corrections lead to 7-10% improvement in JGA. On the other hand, we observe a 29% drop in JGA when models are evaluated on the new test set with unseen entities.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Incentivizing High-Quality Human Annotations with Golden Questions

    cs.GT 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The paper derives a Θ(1/√(n log n)) hypothesis testing rate under strategic annotator behavior and shows that high-certainty, format-similar golden questions better reveal annotation quality than standard checks.

  2. How Humans Help LLMs: Assessing and Incentivizing Human Preference Annotators

    cs.LG 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Develops self-consistency monitoring for preference annotators and derives sample-complexity bounds showing linear contracts achieve near-ideal performance faster than binary ones under continuous actions.

  3. Users as Annotators: LLM Preference Learning from Comparison Mode

    cs.CL 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Introduces a latent user quality model and EM algorithm to infer and filter noisy user-provided pairwise preferences for improved LLM alignment.