Paper detail

Controlling the Risk of Conversational Search via Reinforcement Learning

Users often formulate their search queries with immature language without well-developed keywords and complete structures. Such queries fail to express their true information needs and raise ambiguity as fragmental language often yield various interpretations and aspects. This gives search engines a hard time processing and understanding the query, and eventually leads to unsatisfactory retrieval results. An alternative approach to direct answer while facing an ambiguous query is to proactively ask clarifying questions to the user. Recent years have seen many works and shared tasks from both NLP and IR community about identifying the need for asking clarifying question and methodology to generate them. An often neglected fact by these works is that although sometimes the need for clarifying questions is correctly recognized, the clarifying questions these system generate are still off-topic and dissatisfaction provoking to users and may just cause users to leave the conversation. In this work, we propose a risk-aware conversational search agent model to balance the risk of answering user's query and asking clarifying questions. The agent is fully aware that asking clarifying questions can potentially collect more information from user, but it will compare all the choices it has and evaluate the risks. Only after then, it will make decision between answering or asking. To demonstrate that our system is able to retrieve better answers, we conduct experiments on the MSDialog dataset which contains real-world customer service conversations from Microsoft products community. We also purpose a reinforcement learning strategy which allows us to train our model on the original dataset directly and saves us from any further data annotation efforts. Our experiment results show that our risk-aware conversational search agent is able to significantly outperform strong non-risk-aware baselines.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.