Semantic Parsing for Task Oriented Dialog using Hierarchical Representations

Paper · Source
Task PlanningNatural Language InferenceNLP and Linguistics

A diagram of a event

Task oriented dialog systems typically first parse user utterances to semantic frames comprised of intents and slots. Previous work on task oriented intent and slot-filling work has been restricted to one intent per query and one slot label per token, and thus cannot model complex compositional requests. Alternative semantic parsing systems have represented queries as logical forms, but these are challenging to annotate and parse. We propose a hierarchical annotation scheme for semantic parsing that allows the representation of compositional queries, and can be efficiently and accurately parsed by standard constituency parsing models. We release a dataset of 44k annotated queries 1, and show that parsing models outperform sequence-to-sequence approaches on this dataset.

Introduction. Intelligent personal assistants are now ubiquitous, but modeling the semantics of complex compositional natural language queries remains challenging. Typical systems classify the intent of a query (e.g. GET DIRECTIONS) and tag the necessary slots (e.g. San Francisco) (Mesnil et al., 2013; Liu and Lane, 2016). It is difficult for such representations to adequately represent nested queries such as “Driving directions to the Eagles game”, which is composed of GET DIRECTIONS and GET EVENT intents. We explore a hierarchical representation for such queries, which dramatically improves the expressive power while remaining accurate and efficient to annotate and parse (see Figure 1). We introduce a Task Oriented Parsing (TOP) representation for intent-slot based dialog systems. This hierarchical representation is expressive enough to capture the semantics of com- plex nested queries, but is easier to annotate and parse than alternative representations such as logical forms or dependency graphs.

Discussion / Conclusion. While sequence-to-sequence models have shown strong parsing performance when trained on very large amounts of data (Vinyals et al., 2015); in our setting the inductive bias provided by the RNNG model is crucial to achieving high performance. The model has several useful biases, such as guaranteeing a well-formed output tree, and shortening the dependencies between intents and their slots. A further advantage of RNNG is that inference has linear time complexity, whereas seq2seq models are quadratic because attention is recomputed at every time step. Drawing on ideas from slot-filling and semantic parsing, we introduce a hierarchical generalization of traditional intents and slots that allows the representation of complex nested queries, leading to 30% higher coverage of user requests. We show that the representation can be annotated with high agreement. We are releasing a large dataset of annotated utterances at http://fb. me/semanticparsingdialog. The representation allows the use of existing constituency parsing algorithms, resulting in higher accuracy than sequence-to-sequence models.

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 LLM user simulators model realistic goal-driven conversation? What properties determine whether reward signals teach genuine reasoning? Can self-supervised signals enable process supervision without human annotation? What structural advantages do diffusion language models offer over autoregressive methods? Why do benchmark improvements fail to reflect actual reasoning quality? What critical LLM failures do standard benchmarks hide? Do language models develop causal world models or rely on statistical patterns? Can prompting strategies overcome LLM biases without model fine-tuning? What drives capability and cost efficiency in agent systems? Can single-axis benchmarks accurately predict agent deployment success? What causes silent corruption to amplify through delegated workflows? When does architectural design matter more than raw model capacity? How do training data properties shape reasoning capability development? Does decoupling planning from execution improve multi-step reasoning accuracy? Does fine-tuning modify underlying model capabilities or only behavioral outputs? When should retrieval-augmented systems decide to fetch new information? Why can't humans reliably detect AI-generated text despite measurable linguistic signatures? How does example difficulty affect learning efficiency in language models? How should iterative research systems allocate reasoning per search step?