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
Annotation Inconsistency and Entity Bias in MultiWOZ
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Incentivizing High-Quality Human Annotations with Golden Questions
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.
-
How Humans Help LLMs: Assessing and Incentivizing Human Preference Annotators
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.
-
Users as Annotators: LLM Preference Learning from Comparison Mode
Introduces a latent user quality model and EM algorithm to infer and filter noisy user-provided pairwise preferences for improved LLM alignment.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.