Should We Fine-Tune or RAG? Evaluating Different Techniques to Adapt LLMs for Dialogue

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06399v3
• Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 15:12:02 GMT
• Title: Should We Fine-Tune or RAG? Evaluating Different Techniques to Adapt LLMs for Dialogue
• Authors: Simone Alghisi, Massimo Rizzoli, Gabriel Roccabruna, Seyed Mahed Mousavi, Giuseppe Riccardi,
• Abstract summary: We study the limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs) for the task of response generation in human-machine dialogue. We extensively analyze different LLM adaptation techniques when applied to different dialogue types.
• Score: 1.8652965834931452
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: We study the limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs) for the task of response generation in human-machine dialogue. Several techniques have been proposed in the literature for different dialogue types (e.g., Open-Domain). However, the evaluations of these techniques have been limited in terms of base LLMs, dialogue types and evaluation metrics. In this work, we extensively analyze different LLM adaptation techniques when applied to different dialogue types. We have selected two base LLMs, Llama-2 and Mistral, and four dialogue types Open-Domain, Knowledge-Grounded, Task-Oriented, and Question Answering. We evaluate the performance of in-context learning and fine-tuning techniques across datasets selected for each dialogue type. We assess the impact of incorporating external knowledge to ground the generation in both scenarios of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and gold knowledge. We adopt consistent evaluation and explainability criteria for automatic metrics and human evaluation protocols. Our analysis shows that there is no universal best-technique for adapting large language models as the efficacy of each technique depends on both the base LLM and the specific type of dialogue. Last but not least, the assessment of the best adaptation technique should include human evaluation to avoid false expectations and outcomes derived from automatic metrics.

Related papers

• Leveraging LLMs for Dialogue Quality Measurement [27.046917937460798]
  Large language models (LLMs) show robust zeroshot and few-shot capabilities across NLP tasks. Manipulating factors such as model size, in-context examples, and selection techniques, we examine "chain-of-thought" (CoT) reasoning and label extraction procedures. Our results indicate that LLMs that are suitably fine-tuned and have sufficient reasoning capabilities can be leveraged for automated dialogue evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T06:19:47Z)
• SLIDE: A Framework Integrating Small and Large Language Models for Open-Domain Dialogues Evaluation [23.203761925540736]
  We propose a novel framework SLIDE (Small and Large Integrated for Dialogue Evaluation) Our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance in both the classification and evaluation tasks, and additionally the SLIDE exhibits better correlation with human evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T20:32:49Z)
• A Comprehensive Analysis of the Effectiveness of Large Language Models as Automatic Dialogue Evaluators [46.939611070781794]
  Large language models (LLMs) are shown to be promising substitutes for human judges. We analyze the multi-dimensional evaluation capability of 30 recently emerged LLMs at both turn and dialogue levels. We also probe the robustness of the LLMs in handling various adversarial perturbations at both turn and dialogue levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-24T04:50:57Z)
• BotChat: Evaluating LLMs' Capabilities of Having Multi-Turn Dialogues [72.65163468440434]
  This report provides a preliminary evaluation of existing large language models for human-style multi-turn chatting. We prompt large language models (LLMs) to generate a full multi-turn dialogue based on the ChatSEED, utterance by utterance. We find GPT-4 can generate human-style multi-turn dialogues with impressive quality, significantly outperforms its counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T16:53:51Z)
• JoTR: A Joint Transformer and Reinforcement Learning Framework for Dialog Policy Learning [53.83063435640911]
  Dialogue policy learning (DPL) is a crucial component of dialogue modelling. We introduce a novel framework, JoTR, to generate flexible dialogue actions. Unlike traditional methods, JoTR formulates a word-level policy that allows for a more dynamic and adaptable dialogue action generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-01T03:19:53Z)
• Simple LLM Prompting is State-of-the-Art for Robust and Multilingual Dialogue Evaluation [7.767020408405403]
  We propose a novel framework that takes advantage of the strengths of current evaluation models with the newly-established paradigm of prompting Large Language Models (LLMs) Empirical results show our framework achieves state of the art results in terms of mean Spearman correlation scores across several benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-31T15:19:28Z)
• LLM-Eval: Unified Multi-Dimensional Automatic Evaluation for Open-Domain Conversations with Large Language Models [28.441725610692714]
  We propose a unified multi-dimensional automatic evaluation method for open-domain conversations with large language models (LLMs) We design a single prompt-based evaluation method that leverages a unified evaluation schema to cover multiple dimensions of conversation quality in a single model call. We extensively evaluate the performance of LLM-Eval on various benchmark datasets, demonstrating its effectiveness, efficiency, and adaptability compared to state-of-the-art evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T05:57:09Z)
• GODEL: Large-Scale Pre-Training for Goal-Directed Dialog [119.1397031992088]
  We introduce GODEL, a large pre-trained language model for dialog. We show that GODEL outperforms state-of-the-art pre-trained dialog models in few-shot fine-tuning setups. A novel feature of our evaluation methodology is the introduction of a notion of utility that assesses the usefulness of responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-22T18:19:32Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)
• Modelling Hierarchical Structure between Dialogue Policy and Natural Language Generator with Option Framework for Task-oriented Dialogue System [49.39150449455407]
  HDNO is an option framework for designing latent dialogue acts to avoid designing specific dialogue act representations. We test HDNO on MultiWoz 2.0 and MultiWoz 2.1, the datasets on multi-domain dialogues, in comparison with word-level E2E model trained with RL, LaRL and HDSA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-11T20:55:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.