Papers › Bilateral Personalized Dialogue Generation with Contrastive Learning

Bilateral Personalized Dialogue Generation with Contrastive Learning

15 Jun 2021arXiv:2106.07857archive 2025-07-28

Bin Li, Hanjun Deng

Generating personalized responses is one of the major challenges in natural human-robot interaction. Current researches in this field mainly focus on generating responses consistent with the robot's pre-assigned persona, while ignoring the user's persona. Such responses may be inappropriate or even offensive, which may lead to the bad user experience. Therefore, we propose a Bilateral Personalized Dialogue Generation (BPDG) method for dyadic conversation, which integrates user and robot personas into dialogue generation via designing a dynamic persona-aware fusion method. To bridge the gap between the learning objective function and evaluation metrics, the Conditional Mutual Information Maximum (CMIM) criterion is adopted with contrastive learning to select the proper response from the generated candidates. Moreover, a bilateral persona accuracy metric is designed to measure the degree of bilateral personalization. Experimental results demonstrate that, compared with several state-of-the-art methods, the final results of the proposed method are more personalized and consistent with bilateral personas in terms of both automatic and manual evaluations.

PaperPDFCode

Code

Lireanstar/BPDG officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorchMIT report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Contrastive LearningDialogue GenerationLanguage ModellingTransfer Learning

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Contrastive Learning

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections