KETOD: Knowledge-Enriched Task-Oriented Dialogue

Paper · arXiv 2205.05589 · Published May 11, 2022
Conversation Architecture and Structure

A screenshot of a chat

Existing studies in dialogue system research mostly treat task-oriented dialogue and chitchat as separate domains. Towards building a human-like assistant that can converse naturally and seamlessly with users, it is important to build a dialogue system that conducts both types of conversations effectively. In this work, we investigate how task-oriented dialogue and knowledge-grounded chit-chat can be effectively integrated into a single model. To this end, we create a new dataset, KETOD (Knowledge-Enriched Task-Oriented Dialogue), where we naturally enrich taskoriented dialogues with chit-chat based on relevant entity knowledge. We also propose two new models, SimpleToDPlus and Combiner, for the proposed task. Experimental results on both automatic and human evaluations show that the proposed methods can significantly improve the performance in knowledge-enriched response generation while maintaining a competitive task-oriented dialog performance. We believe our new dataset will be a valuable resource for future studies. Our dataset and code are publicly available1.

Introduction. Dialogue systems have achieved substantial progress (Zhang et al., 2020; Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020a; Tao et al., 2021) due to recent success in language model pre-training (Radford et al., 2019; Raffel et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020). One major type of dialogue being studied is task-oriented dialogue (TOD) (Wen et al., 2017a; Budzianowski et al., 2018; Rastogi et al., 2020; Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020a), where the system aims to collect user intents/goals to complete certain tasks (e.g. restaurant-booking). In most of TOD systems, the system responses are concise and templated, as we only focus on the success of task completion but not providing a natural and engaging conversational experience. The latter is the target of another kind of popularly studied dialogue - knowledgegrounded chit-chat (Ghazvininejad et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018; Tuan et al., 2019; Dinan et al., 2019).

Discussion / Conclusion. In this work, we propose to combine task-oriented dialogue with knowledge-grounded chit-chat, and construct a new dataset named KETOD, with manually composed knowledge-enriched system re- sponses. We conduct comprehensive experiments on our new dataset to study the insights and challenges. We believe that our proposed task is an important step towards the ultimate goal to build a unified, human-like conversational AI. Our new dataset KETOD, annotated by experts, will greatly facilitate the research in this direction.

Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24

Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.

How can authorization policies prevent agents from bypassing safety through delegation? How can conversational agents move from purely reactive responses to proactive engagement? What should conversational recommenders optimize for beyond mention-based shortcuts? How do multi-turn dialogue interactions shape model agency and reasoning reliability? What information does direct speech processing preserve that transcription loses? Can models learn to request clarification instead of guessing on incomplete prompts? Can transparency and warnings effectively mitigate AI's persuasive power? What are the actual limits of what prompting techniques can accomplish? Do reasoning tokens exhibit diminishing returns beyond a critical computational threshold? Why do conversational AI systems degrade in coherence over multiple turns? Can readers reliably detect AI involvement or authorship in text? How do multiple factors and tradeoffs determine persuasion effectiveness? Why do model confidence signals often mislead users about accuracy? Do language models hold coherent persona beliefs that predict their actions? Can users accurately assess AI output quality despite polished presentation? Can evaluation metrics recognize meaningful disagreement as signal rather than noise? Does encoded knowledge in language models actually influence their outputs? Do models verbalize the knowledge that actually influences their outputs? Why does self-revision in reasoning models increase confidence while degrading accuracy?