Paper detail

Which Kind Is Better in Open-domain Multi-turn Dialog,Hierarchical or Non-hierarchical Models? An Empirical Study

Currently, open-domain generative dialog systems have attracted considerable attention in academia and industry. Despite the success of single-turn dialog generation, multi-turn dialog generation is still a big challenge. So far, there are two kinds of models for open-domain multi-turn dialog generation: hierarchical and non-hierarchical models. Recently, some works have shown that the hierarchical models are better than non-hierarchical models under their experimental settings; meanwhile, some works also demonstrate the opposite conclusion. Due to the lack of adequate comparisons, it's not clear which kind of models are better in open-domain multi-turn dialog generation. Thus, in this paper, we will measure systematically nearly all representative hierarchical and non-hierarchical models over the same experimental settings to check which kind is better. Through extensive experiments, we have the following three important conclusions: (1) Nearly all hierarchical models are worse than non-hierarchical models in open-domain multi-turn dialog generation, except for the HRAN model. Through further analysis, the excellent performance of HRAN mainly depends on its word-level attention mechanism; (2) The performance of other hierarchical models will also obtain a great improvement if integrating the word-level attention mechanism into these models. The modified hierarchical models even significantly outperform the non-hierarchical models; (3) The reason why the word-level attention mechanism is so powerful for hierarchical models is because it can leverage context information more effectively, especially the fine-grained information. Besides, we have implemented all of the models and already released the codes.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

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 map preview

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.