فایل ورد کامل یادگیری تقویتی عمیق برای تولید دیالوگ

توجه : به همراه فایل word این محصول فایل پاورپوینت (PowerPoint) و اسلاید های آن به صورت هدیه ارائه خواهد شد

این مقاله، ترجمه شده یک مقاله مرجع و معتبر انگلیسی می باشد که به صورت بسیار عالی توسط متخصصین این رشته ترجمه شده است و به صورت فایل ورد (microsoft word) ارائه می گردد

متن داخلی مقاله بسیار عالی، پر محتوا و قابل درک می باشد و شما از استفاده ی آن بسیار لذت خواهید برد. ما عالی بودن این مقاله را تضمین می کنیم

فایل ورد این مقاله بسیار خوب تایپ شده و قابل کپی و ویرایش می باشد و تنظیمات آن نیز به صورت عالی انجام شده است؛ به همراه فایل ورد این مقاله یک فایل پاور پوینت نیز به شما ارئه خواهد شد که دارای یک قالب بسیار زیبا و تنظیمات نمایشی متعدد می باشد

توجه : در صورت مشاهده بهم ریختگی احتمالی در متون زیر ،دلیل ان کپی کردن این مطالب از داخل فایل می باشد و در فایل اصلی فایل ورد کامل یادگیری تقویتی عمیق برای تولید دیالوگ،به هیچ وجه بهم ریختگی وجود ندارد

تعداد صفحات این فایل: ۲۶ صفحه

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسیعنوان انگلیسی:Deep Reinforcement Learning for Dialogue Generation~~en~~

Abstract

Recent neural models of dialogue generation offer great promise for generating responses for conversational agents, but tend to be shortsighted, predicting utterances one at a time while ignoring their influence on future outcomes. Modeling the future direction of a dialogue is crucial to generating coherent, interesting dialogues, a need which led traditional NLP models of dialogue to draw on reinforcement learning. In this paper, we show how to integrate these goals, applying deep reinforcement learning to model future reward in chatbot dialogue. The model simulates dialogues between two virtual agents, using policy gradient methods to reward sequences that display three useful conversational properties: informativity, coherence, and ease of answering (related to forward-looking function). We evaluate our model on diversity, length as well as with human judges, showing that the proposed algorithm generates more interactive responses and manages to foster a more sustained conversation in dialogue simulation. This work marks a first step towards learning a neural conversational model based on the long-term success of dialogues.

۱ Introduction

Neural response generation (Sordoni et al., 2015; Shang et al., 2015; Vinyals and Le, 2015; Li et al., 2016a; Wen et al., 2015; Yao et al., 2015; Luan et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2016; Wen et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016b; Su et al., 2016) is of growing interest. The LSTM sequence-to-sequence (SEQ2SEQ) model (Sutskever et al., 2014) is one type of neural generation model that maximizes the probability of generating a response given the previous dialogue turn. This approach enables the incorporation of rich context when mapping between consecutive dialogue turns (Sordoni et al., 2015) in a way not possible, for example, with MT-based dialogue models (Ritter et al., 2011).

Despite the success of SEQ2SEQ models in dialogue generation, two problems emerge: First, SEQ2SEQ models are trained by predicting the next dialogue turn in a given conversational context using the maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) objective function. However, it is not clear how well MLE approximates the real-world goal of chatbot development: teaching a machine to converse with humans, while providing interesting, diverse, and informative feedback that keeps users engaged. One concrete example is that SEQ2SEQ models tend to generate highly generic responses such as “I don’t know” regardless of the input (Sordoni et al., 2015; Serban et al., 2016; Li et al., 2016a). This can be ascribed to the high frequency of generic responses found in the training set and their compatibility with a diverse range of conversational contexts. Yet “I don’t know” is apparently not a good action to take, since it closes the conversation down.

Another common problem, illustrated in the two sample conversations on the left of Table 1, is that the system becomes stuck in an infinite loop of repetitive responses. This is due to MLE-based SEQ2SEQ models’ inability to account for repetition. In example 2 (bottom left), the dialogue falls into an infinite loop after three turns, with both agents generating dull, generic utterances like i don’t know what you are talking about and you don’t know what you are saying. Looking at the entire conversation, utterance (4) turns out to be a bad action to take because it offers no way of continuing the conversation.

$$en!!