REVIEW 2 cited by
Action-Based Conversations Dataset: A Corpus for Building More In-Depth Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems
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
Action-Based Conversations Dataset: A Corpus for Building More In-Depth Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems
read the original abstract
Existing goal-oriented dialogue datasets focus mainly on identifying slots and values. However, customer support interactions in reality often involve agents following multi-step procedures derived from explicitly-defined company policies as well. To study customer service dialogue systems in more realistic settings, we introduce the Action-Based Conversations Dataset (ABCD), a fully-labeled dataset with over 10K human-to-human dialogues containing 55 distinct user intents requiring unique sequences of actions constrained by policies to achieve task success. We propose two additional dialog tasks, Action State Tracking and Cascading Dialogue Success, and establish a series of baselines involving large-scale, pre-trained language models on this dataset. Empirical results demonstrate that while more sophisticated networks outperform simpler models, a considerable gap (50.8% absolute accuracy) still exists to reach human-level performance on ABCD.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
$\tau^2$-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment
τ²-bench provides a Dec-POMDP-based telecom domain with compositional task generation and a tool-constrained user simulator to measure agent performance drops in dual-control versus single-control settings.
-
$\tau$-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains
τ-bench shows state-of-the-art agents like GPT-4o succeed on under 50% of tool-using, rule-following tasks and are inconsistent across repeated trials.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.