paint-brush
Automatic Filtering: Sentence-Level Analysisby@feedbackloop

Automatic Filtering: Sentence-Level Analysis

tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

Explore the precision of automatic filtering through sentence-level analysis. Figure 2 visually represents similarity ranges between user responses and error-indicating sentences, highlighting the dominance of SFC in phrase identification. Discover the nuances of clusters in lower similarity ranges from various datasets.
featured image - Automatic Filtering: Sentence-Level Analysis
The FeedbackLoop: #1 in PM Education HackerNoon profile picture

Authors:

(1) Dominic Petrak, UKP Lab, Department of Computer Science, Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany;

(2) Nafise Sadat Moosavi, Department of Computer Science, The University of Sheffield, United Kingdom;

(3) Ye Tian, Wluper, London, United Kingdom;

(4) Nikolai Rozanov, Wluper, London, United Kingdom;

(5) Iryna Gurevych, UKP Lab, Department of Computer Science, Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany.

Table of Links

Abstract & Introduction

Related Work

Datasets Examined

Manual Error Type Analysis and Taxonomies

Automatic Filtering for Potentially Relevant Dialogs

Statistical Analysis

Evaluation and Experiments

Discussion

Conclusion, Limitation, Acknowledgments, and References

A Integrated Error Taxonomy – Details

B Error-Indicating Sentences And Phrases

C Automatic Filtering – Implementation

D Automatic Filtering – Sentence-Level Analysis

E Task-Oriented Dialogs – Examples

F Effectiveness Of Automatic Filtering – A Detailed Analysis

G Inter-Annotator Agreement – Detailed Analysis

H Annotation Guidelines

I Hyperparameters and Baseline Experiments

J Human-Human Dialogs – Examples


For context:

Figure 2: Illustration of the distribution of dialogs with potential real-world error scenarios across datasets.


D Automatic Filtering – Sentence-Level Analysis

As described in Section 5, we filter on sentencelevel for similar user responses. Figure 2 illustrates the ranges of similarity between the sentences extracted from the user utterances and the errorindicating sentences, i.e., 50%−60%, 60%−70%, 70% − 80%,80% − 90%, 90% − 100%. It reflects the share in identified phrases from each of the datasets (see Table 3). Most of the phrases were identified in SFC (Hancock et al., 2019). Only a small amount of phrases came from the other datasets which might be the reason for the clusters in the lower ranges.


This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED license.