preprint Open access

Elastic Weight Removal for Faithful and Abstractive Dialogue Generation

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Cornell University
Research footprint

At a glance

Citations
0
References
0
Comments
0
Paper overview

Abstract

Ideally, dialogue systems should generate responses that are faithful to the knowledge contained in relevant documents. However, many models generate hallucinated responses instead that contradict it or contain unverifiable information. To mitigate such undesirable behaviour, it has been proposed to fine-tune a `negative expert' on negative examples and subtract its parameters from those of a pre-trained model. However, intuitively, this does not take into account that some parameters are more responsible than others in causing hallucinations. Thus, we propose to weigh their individual importance via (an approximation of) the Fisher Information matrix, which measures the uncertainty of their estimate. We call this method Elastic Weight Removal (EWR). We evaluate our method -- using different variants of Flan-T5 as a backbone language model -- on multiple datasets for information-seeking dialogue generation and compare our method with state-of-the-art techniques for faithfulness, such as CTRL, Quark, DExperts, and Noisy Channel reranking. Extensive automatic and human evaluation shows that EWR systematically increases faithfulness at minor costs in terms of other metrics. However, we notice that only discouraging hallucinations may increase extractiveness, i.e. shallow copy-pasting of document spans, which can be undesirable. Hence, as a second main contribution, we show that our method can be extended to simultaneously discourage hallucinations and extractive responses. We publicly release the code for reproducing EWR and all baselines.

Record transparency

Publication details

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2303.17574
OpenAlex
W4361866085
Document type
preprint
Language
EN
Source
arXiv (Cornell University)
Last metadata update
Community

Comments

Log in to join the discussion.

  1. No comments yet. Start the discussion.