skip to main content
research-article

SAM: Multi-turn Response Selection Based on Semantic Awareness Matching

Published:23 March 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Multi-turn response selection is a key issue in retrieval-based chatbots and has attracted considerable attention in the NLP (Natural Language processing) field. So far, researchers have developed many solutions that can select appropriate responses for multi-turn conversations. However, these works are still suffering from the semantic mismatch problem when responses and context share similar words with different meanings. In this article, we propose a novel chatbot model based on Semantic Awareness Matching, called SAM. SAM can capture both similarity and semantic features in the context by a two-layer matching network. Appropriate responses are selected according to the matching probability made through the aggregation of the two feature types. In the evaluation, we pick 4 widely used datasets and compare SAM’s performance to that of 12 other models. Experiment results show that SAM achieves substantial improvements, with up to 1.5% R10@1 on Ubuntu Dialogue Corpus V2, 0.5% R10@1 on Douban Conversation Corpus, and 1.3% R10@1 on E-commerce Corpus.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Assila Ahlem, Ezzedine Houcine, et al. 2016. Standardized usability questionnaires: Features and quality focus. Electronic Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology 6, 1 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Bird Steven, Klein Ewan, and Loper Edward. 2009. Natural Language Processing with Python: Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit. O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] Bobrow Daniel G., Kaplan Ronald M., Kay Martin, Norman Donald A., Thompson Henry, and Winograd Terry. 1977. GUS, a frame-driven dialog system. Artificial Intelligence 8, 2 (1977), 155173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. [4] Devlin Jacob, Chang Ming-Wei, Lee Kenton, and Toutanova Kristina. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long and Short Papers), ACL, Minneapolis, MN, 4171–4186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. [5] Gu Jia-Chen, Li Tianda, Liu Quan, Ling Zhen-Hua, Su Zhiming, Wei Si, and Zhu Xiaodan. 2020. Speaker-aware BERT for multi-turn response selection in retrieval-based chatbots. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Virtual Event, Ireland (CIKM’20). ACM, 20412044.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. [6] Guo Bao, Zhang Chunxia, Liu Junmin, and Ma Xiaoyi. 2019. Improving text classification with weighted word embeddings via a multi-channel TextCNN model. Neurocomputing 363 (2019), 366374.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [7] Hu Baotian, Lu Zhengdong, Li Hang, and Chen Qingcai. 2014. Convolutional neural network architectures for matching natural language sentences. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 2, MIT Press, Montreal, 2042–2050.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. [8] Kalchbrenner Nal, Grefenstette Edward, and Blunsom Phil. 2014. A convolutional neural network for modelling sentences. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL, Baltimore MD, 655–665.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. [9] Karlik Bekir and Olgac A. Vehbi. 2011. Performance analysis of various activation functions in generalized MLP architectures of neural networks. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems 1, 4 (2011), 111122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. [10] Kim Yoon. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP’14), ACL, Doha, 1746–1751.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. [11] Krizhevsky Alex, Sutskever Ilya, and Hinton Geoffrey E.. 2012. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 10971105.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. [12] LeCun Yann, Bengio Yoshua, and Hinton Geoffrey. 2015. Deep learning. Nature 521, 7553 (2015), 436.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. [13] LeCun Yann, Boser Bernhard E., Denker John S., Henderson Donnie, Howard Richard E., Hubbard Wayne E., and Jackel Lawrence D.. 1990. Handwritten digit recognition with a back-propagation network. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 396404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. [14] Lei Wenqiang, Jin Xisen, Kan Min-Yen, Ren Zhaochun, He Xiangnan, and Yin Dawei. 2018. Sequicity: Simplifying task-oriented dialogue systems with single sequence-to-sequence architectures. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL, Melbourne, 1437–1447.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. [15] Liu Yinhan, Ott Myle, Goyal Naman, Du Jingfei, Joshi Mandar, Chen Danqi, Levy Omer, Lewis Mike, Zettlemoyer Luke, and Stoyanov Veselin. 2019. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. [16] Lowe Ryan, Pow Nissan, Serban Iulian Vlad, and Pineau Joelle. 2015. The Ubuntu dialogue corpus: A large dataset for research in unstructured multi-turn dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, ACL, Prague, 285–294.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. [17] Lowe Ryan Thomas, Pow Nissan, Serban Iulian Vlad, Charlin Laurent, Liu Chia-Wei, and Pineau Joelle. 2017. Training end-to-end dialogue systems with the Ubuntu dialogue corpus. Dialogue & Discourse 8, 1 (2017), 3165.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. [18] Lu Junyu, Zhang Chenbin, Xie Zeying, Ling Guang, Zhou Tom Chao, and Xu Zenglin. 2019. Constructing interpretive spatio-temporal features for multi-turn responses selection. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, Florence, 44–50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Lu Zhengdong and Li Hang. 2013. A deep architecture for matching short texts. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 13671375.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Madotto Andrea, Wu Chien-Sheng, and Fung Pascale. 2018. Mem2seq: Effectively incorporating knowledge bases into end-to-end task-oriented dialog systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.08217 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Mrkšić Nikola, Séaghdha Diarmuid O., Wen Tsung-Hsien, Thomson Blaise, and Young Steve. 2016. Neural belief tracker: Data-driven dialogue state tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03777 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. [22] Pandey Gaurav, Contractor Danish, Kumar Vineet, and Joshi Sachindra. 2018. Exemplar encoder-decoder for neural conversation generation. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL, Melbourne, 1329–1338.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Pang Liang, Lan Yanyan, Guo Jiafeng, Xu Jun, Wan Shengxian, and Cheng Xueqi. 2016. Text matching as image recognition. In 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. [24] Peng Baolin, Li Xiujun, Gao Jianfeng, Liu Jingjing, and Wong Kam-Fai. 2018. Deep dyna-Q: Integrating planning for task-completion dialogue policy learning. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL, Melbourne, 2182–2192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] Pennington Jeffrey, Socher Richard, and Manning Christopher D.. 2014. GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP’14), ACL, Doha, 1532–1543.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. [26] Rajpurkar Pranav, Zhang Jian, Lopyrev Konstantin, and Liang Percy. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, ACL, Austin, 2383–2392.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. [27] Ramos Juan. 2003. Using TF-IDF to determine word relevance in document queries. In Proceedings of the 1st Instructional Conference on Machine Learning, Vol. 242, ACM, Alberta, 133142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. [28] Rao Jinfeng, Liu Linqing, Tay Yi, Yang Wei, Shi Peng, and Lin Jimmy. 2019. Bridging the gap between relevance matching and semantic matching for short text similarity modeling. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP’19), ACL, Hong Kong, 5373–5384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. [29] Ritter Alan, Cherry Colin, and Dolan William B.. 2011. Data-driven response generation in social media. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods, ACL, Edinburgh, 583–593.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. [30] Scherer Dominik, Müller Andreas, and Behnke Sven. 2010. Evaluation of pooling operations in convolutional architectures for object recognition. In 20th International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, Springer, Thessaloniki, 92–101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Shang Lifeng, Lu Zhengdong, and Li Hang. 2015. Neural responding machine for short-text conversation. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL, Beijing, 1577–1586.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. [32] Shum Heung-Yeung, He Xiao-dong, and Li Di. 2018. From Eliza to XiaoIce: Challenges and opportunities with social chatbots. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering 19, 1 (2018), 1026.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. [33] Sordoni Alessandro, Galley Michel, Auli Michael, Brockett Chris, Ji Yangfeng, Mitchell Margaret, Nie Jian-Yun, Gao Jianfeng, and Dolan William B.. 2015. A neural network approach to context-sensitive generation of conversational responses. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, ACL, Denver, 196–205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. [34] Tao Chongyang, Wu Wei, Xu Can, Hu Wenpeng, Zhao Dongyan, and Yan Rui. 2019. Multi-representation fusion network for multi-turn response selection in retrieval-based chatbots. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, ACM, Melbourne, 267–275.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. [35] Tao Chongyang, Wu Wei, Xu Can, Hu Wenpeng, Zhao Dongyan, and Yan Rui. 2019. One time of interaction may not be enough: Go deep with an interaction-over-interaction network for response selection in dialogues. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL, Florence, 1–11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. [36] Vinyals Oriol and Le Quoc. 2015. A neural conversational model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.05869 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. [37] Wang Hao, Lu Zhengdong, Li Hang, and Chen Enhong. 2013. A dataset for research on short-text conversations. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, ACL, Seattle, 935–945.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. [38] Wang Mingxuan, Lu Zhengdong, Li Hang, and Liu Qun. 2015. Syntax-based deep matching of short texts. In 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ACM, Buenos, 1354–1361.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [39] Wu Yu, Wu Wei, Xing Chen, Zhou Ming, and Li Zhoujun. 2017. Sequential matching network: A new architecture for multi-turn response selection in retrieval-based chatbots. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL, Vancouver, 496–505.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. [40] Yang Zhilin, Dai Zihang, Yang Yiming, Carbonell Jaime, Salakhutdinov Russ R., and Le Quoc V.. 2019. XLNet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 57545764.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. [41] Yuan Chunyuan, Zhou Wei, Li Mingming, Lv Shangwen, Zhu Fuqing, Han Jizhong, and Hu Songlin. 2019. Multi-hop selector network for multi-turn response selection in retrieval-based chatbots. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP’19), ACL, Hong Kong, 111–120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. [42] Zhang Zhuosheng, Li Jiangtong, Zhu Pengfei, Zhao Hai, and Liu Gongshen. 2018. Modeling multi-turn conversation with deep utterance aggregation. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, ACL, Santa Fe, 3740–3752.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. [43] Zhou Xiangyang, Dong Daxiang, Wu Hua, Zhao Shiqi, Yu Dianhai, Tian Hao, Liu Xuan, and Yan Rui. 2016. Multi-view response selection for human-computer conversation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, ACL, Austin, TX, 372–381.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. [44] Zhou Xiangyang, Li Lu, Dong Daxiang, Liu Yi, Chen Ying, Zhao Wayne Xin, Yu Dianhai, and Wu Hua. 2018. Multi-turn response selection for chatbots with deep attention matching network. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL, Melbourne, 1118–1127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. SAM: Multi-turn Response Selection Based on Semantic Awareness Matching

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
          ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 23, Issue 1
          February 2023
          564 pages
          ISSN:1533-5399
          EISSN:1557-6051
          DOI:10.1145/3584863
          • Editor:
          • Ling Liu
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 23 March 2023
          • Online AM: 30 June 2022
          • Accepted: 21 June 2022
          • Revised: 8 June 2022
          • Received: 7 May 2021
          Published in toit Volume 23, Issue 1

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)229
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)22

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Full Text

        View this article in Full Text.

        View Full Text

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format