CAUSE: Counterfactual Assessment of User Satisfaction Estimation in Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Evaluating user satisfaction in task-oriented dialogue systems is crucial but challenging
- This paper introduces CAUSE, a framework for counterfactual assessment of user satisfaction estimation
- CAUSE addresses limitations of existing evaluation approaches by considering the potential effects of system actions on user satisfaction
Plain English Explanation
The paper discusses the challenge of accurately evaluating user satisfaction in task-oriented dialogue systems, which are computer programs designed to help users accomplish specific goals through conversation. Existing methods for estimating user satisfaction often have limitations, such as relying on user feedback that may be biased or not capturing the full context of the interaction.
The researchers introduce a new framework called CAUSE (Counterfactual Assessment of User Satisfaction Estimation) that aims to address these issues. CAUSE uses counterfactual analysis to estimate how changes to the dialogue system's actions would have affected user satisfaction. This allows the researchers to assess the system's performance more comprehensively and identify areas for improvement.
By considering the potential effects of different system actions on user satisfaction, CAUSE provides a more nuanced and realistic evaluation of dialogue systems compared to traditional approaches. This could lead to the development of better, more user-friendly dialogue systems in the future.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a framework called CAUSE (Counterfactual Assessment of User Satisfaction Estimation) for evaluating user satisfaction in task-oriented dialogue systems. CAUSE uses counterfactual analysis to assess how changes to the system's actions would have affected user satisfaction, addressing limitations of existing evaluation approaches.
The key elements of CAUSE include:
- Counterfactual Estimation: CAUSE estimates counterfactual user satisfaction scores, which represent how satisfied the user would have been if the system had taken different actions.
- Action-based Evaluation: Instead of relying solely on user feedback, CAUSE evaluates the system's actions and their potential impact on user satisfaction.
- Causal Modeling: CAUSE employs causal models to capture the relationships between system actions, user responses, and user satisfaction.
By considering the counterfactual effects of system actions, CAUSE provides a more comprehensive and realistic assessment of dialogue system performance. This approach can help identify areas for improvement and guide the development of better, more user-friendly dialogue systems.
Critical Analysis
The paper acknowledges several caveats and limitations of the CAUSE framework. One key limitation is the reliance on accurate causal models, which may be challenging to obtain in practice. The researchers also note that CAUSE's effectiveness depends on the quality of the underlying dialogue data and user satisfaction annotations.
Additionally, the paper does not address potential biases or inaccuracies in the user feedback used to train the causal models. This is an area that could benefit from further research and validation.
Despite these limitations, the CAUSE framework represents a promising approach to evaluating dialogue systems. By considering the counterfactual effects of system actions, it provides a more nuanced and realistic assessment of user satisfaction, which could lead to the development of improved dialogue systems in the future.
Conclusion
The paper introduces the CAUSE framework, a novel approach for evaluating user satisfaction in task-oriented dialogue systems. CAUSE addresses limitations of existing evaluation methods by considering the counterfactual effects of system actions on user satisfaction.
By employing causal modeling and counterfactual estimation, CAUSE offers a more comprehensive and realistic assessment of dialogue system performance. This could guide the development of better, more user-friendly dialogue systems that are better able to meet users' needs and expectations.
While CAUSE has some limitations, such as the reliance on accurate causal models, it represents a significant step forward in the field of dialogue system evaluation. Further research and validation of this approach could lead to important advancements in the design and deployment of effective task-oriented dialogue systems.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
CAUSE: Counterfactual Assessment of User Satisfaction Estimation in Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems
Amin Abolghasemi, Zhaochun Ren, Arian Askari, Mohammad Aliannejadi, Maarten de Rijke, Suzan Verberne
An important unexplored aspect in previous work on user satisfaction estimation for Task-Oriented Dialogue (TOD) systems is their evaluation in terms of robustness for the identification of user dissatisfaction: current benchmarks for user satisfaction estimation in TOD systems are highly skewed towards dialogues for which the user is satisfied. The effect of having a more balanced set of satisfaction labels on performance is unknown. However, balancing the data with more dissatisfactory dialogue samples requires further data collection and human annotation, which is costly and time-consuming. In this work, we leverage large language models (LLMs) and unlock their ability to generate satisfaction-aware counterfactual dialogues to augment the set of original dialogues of a test collection. We gather human annotations to ensure the reliability of the generated samples. We evaluate two open-source LLMs as user satisfaction estimators on our augmented collection against state-of-the-art fine-tuned models. Our experiments show that when used as few-shot user satisfaction estimators, open-source LLMs show higher robustness to the increase in the number of dissatisfaction labels in the test collection than the fine-tuned state-of-the-art models. Our results shed light on the need for data augmentation approaches for user satisfaction estimation in TOD systems. We release our aligned counterfactual dialogues, which are curated by human annotation, to facilitate further research on this topic.
Read more8/21/2024
📶
0
Revealing User Familiarity Bias in Task-Oriented Dialogue via Interactive Evaluation
Takyoung Kim, Jamin Shin, Young-Ho Kim, Sanghwan Bae, Sungdong Kim
Most task-oriented dialogue (TOD) benchmarks assume users that know exactly how to use the system by constraining the user behaviors within the system's capabilities via strict user goals, namely user familiarity bias. This data bias deepens when it combines with data-driven TOD systems, as it is impossible to fathom the effect of it with existing static evaluations. Hence, we conduct an interactive user study to unveil how vulnerable TOD systems are against realistic scenarios. In particular, we compare users with 1) detailed goal instructions that conform to the system boundaries (closed-goal) and 2) vague goal instructions that are often unsupported but realistic (open-goal). Our study reveals that conversations in open-goal settings lead to catastrophic failures of the system, in which 92% of the dialogues had significant issues. Moreover, we conduct a thorough analysis to identify distinctive features between the two settings through error annotation. From this, we discover a novel pretending behavior, in which the system pretends to handle the user requests even though they are beyond the system's capabilities. We discuss its characteristics and toxicity while showing recent large language models can also suffer from this behavior.
Read more7/2/2024
0
Rethinking the Evaluation of Dialogue Systems: Effects of User Feedback on Crowdworkers and LLMs
Clemencia Siro, Mohammad Aliannejadi, Maarten de Rijke
In ad-hoc retrieval, evaluation relies heavily on user actions, including implicit feedback. In a conversational setting such signals are usually unavailable due to the nature of the interactions, and, instead, the evaluation often relies on crowdsourced evaluation labels. The role of user feedback in annotators' assessment of turns in a conversational perception has been little studied. We focus on how the evaluation of task-oriented dialogue systems (TDSs), is affected by considering user feedback, explicit or implicit, as provided through the follow-up utterance of a turn being evaluated. We explore and compare two methodologies for assessing TDSs: one includes the user's follow-up utterance and one without. We use both crowdworkers and large language models (LLMs) as annotators to assess system responses across four aspects: relevance, usefulness, interestingness, and explanation quality. Our findings indicate that there is a distinct difference in ratings assigned by both annotator groups in the two setups, indicating user feedback does influence system evaluation. Workers are more susceptible to user feedback on usefulness and interestingness compared to LLMs on interestingness and relevance. User feedback leads to a more personalized assessment of usefulness by workers, aligning closely with the user's explicit feedback. Additionally, in cases of ambiguous or complex user requests, user feedback improves agreement among crowdworkers. These findings emphasize the significance of user feedback in refining system evaluations and suggest the potential for automated feedback integration in future research. We publicly release the annotated data to foster research in this area.
Read more5/1/2024
0
Interpretable User Satisfaction Estimation for Conversational Systems with Large Language Models
Ying-Chun Lin, Jennifer Neville, Jack W. Stokes, Longqi Yang, Tara Safavi, Mengting Wan, Scott Counts, Siddharth Suri, Reid Andersen, Xiaofeng Xu, Deepak Gupta, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Xia Song, Georg Buscher, Saurabh Tiwary, Brent Hecht, Jaime Teevan
Accurate and interpretable user satisfaction estimation (USE) is critical for understanding, evaluating, and continuously improving conversational systems. Users express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with diverse conversational patterns in both general-purpose (ChatGPT and Bing Copilot) and task-oriented (customer service chatbot) conversational systems. Existing approaches based on featurized ML models or text embeddings fall short in extracting generalizable patterns and are hard to interpret. In this work, we show that LLMs can extract interpretable signals of user satisfaction from their natural language utterances more effectively than embedding-based approaches. Moreover, an LLM can be tailored for USE via an iterative prompting framework using supervision from labeled examples. The resulting method, Supervised Prompting for User satisfaction Rubrics (SPUR), not only has higher accuracy but is more interpretable as it scores user satisfaction via learned rubrics with a detailed breakdown.
Read more6/11/2024