Papers › Healing Unsafe Dialogue Responses with Weak Supervision Signals
Healing Unsafe Dialogue Responses with Weak Supervision Signals
Zi Liang, Pinghui Wang, Ruofei Zhang, Shuo Zhang, Xiaofan Ye Yi Huang, Junlan Feng
Recent years have seen increasing concerns about the unsafe response generation of large-scale dialogue systems, where agents will learn offensive or biased behaviors from the real-world corpus. Some methods are proposed to address the above issue by detecting and replacing unsafe training examples in a pipeline style. Though effective, they suffer from a high annotation cost and adapt poorly to unseen scenarios as well as adversarial attacks. Besides, the neglect of providing safe responses (e.g. simply replacing with templates) will cause the information-missing problem of dialogues. To address these issues, we propose an unsupervised pseudo-label sampling method, TEMP, that can automatically assign potential safe responses. Specifically, our TEMP method groups responses into several clusters and samples multiple labels with an adaptively sharpened sampling strategy, inspired by the observation that unsafe samples in the clusters are usually few and distribute in the tail. Extensive experiments in chitchat and task-oriented dialogues show that our TEMP outperforms state-of-the-art models with weak supervision signals and obtains comparable results under unsupervised learning settings.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
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
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
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