Conversational Graph Grounded Policy Learning for Open-Domain Conversation Generation

Paper · Source
Conversation Architecture and StructureKnowledge GraphsNovel LLM ArchitecturesReward Models

To address the challenge of policy learning in open-domain multi-turn conversation, we propose to represent prior information about dialog transitions as a graph and learn a graph grounded dialog policy, aimed at fostering a more coherent and controllable dialog. To this end, we first construct a conversational graph (CG) from dialog corpora, in which there are vertices to represent “what to say” and “how to say”, and edges to represent natural transition between a message (the last utterance in a dialog context) and its response. We then present a novel CG grounded policy learning framework that conducts dialog flow planning by graph traversal, which learns to identify a what-vertex and a how-vertex from the CG at each turn to guide response generation. In this way, we effectively leverage the CG to facilitate policy learning as follows: (1) it enables more effective long-term reward design, (2) it provides high-quality candidate actions, and (3) it gives us more control over the policy. Results on two benchmark corpora demonstrate the effectiveness of this framework.

Introduction. How to effectively learn dialog strategies is an enduring challenge for open-domain multi-turn conversation generation. To address this challenge, previous works investigate word-level policy models that simultaneously learn dialog policy and language generation from dialog corpora (Li et al., 2016b; Zhang et al., 2018b). But these word-level policy models often lead to a degeneration issue where the utterances become ungrammatical or repetitive (Lewis et al., 2017). To alleviate this issue, utterance-level policy models have been proposed to decouple policy learning from response generation, and they focus on how to incorporate high-level utterance representations, e.g., latent variables or keywords, to facilitate policy learning (He et al., 2018; Yao et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2019). However, these utterance-level methods tend to produce less coherent multi-turn dialogs since it is quite challenging to learn semantic transitions in a dialog flow merely from dialog data without the help of prior information.

Discussion / Conclusion. In this paper we present a novel graph grounded policy learning framework for open-domain multiturn conversation, which can effectively leverage prior information about dialog transitions to foster a more coherent and controllable dialog. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of this framework in terms of local appropriateness, global coherence and dialog-target success rate. In the future, we will investigate how to extend the CG to support hierarchical topic management in conversational systems.

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?