Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Are LLMs Robust for Spoken Dialogues?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.02297 v1 pith:DODZXEDK submitted 2024-01-04 cs.CL

Are LLMs Robust for Spoken Dialogues?

classification cs.CL
keywords spokendialoguesmodelsperformancedialoguellmsrobustdataset
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Large Pre-Trained Language Models have demonstrated state-of-the-art performance in different downstream tasks, including dialogue state tracking and end-to-end response generation. Nevertheless, most of the publicly available datasets and benchmarks on task-oriented dialogues focus on written conversations. Consequently, the robustness of the developed models to spoken interactions is unknown. In this work, we have evaluated the performance of LLMs for spoken task-oriented dialogues on the DSTC11 test sets. Due to the lack of proper spoken dialogue datasets, we have automatically transcribed a development set of spoken dialogues with a state-of-the-art ASR engine. We have characterized the ASR-error types and their distributions and simulated these errors in a large dataset of dialogues. We report the intrinsic (perplexity) and extrinsic (human evaluation) performance of fine-tuned GPT-2 and T5 models in two subtasks of response generation and dialogue state tracking, respectively. The results show that LLMs are not robust to spoken noise by default, however, fine-tuning/training such models on a proper dataset of spoken TODs can result in a more robust performance.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.