Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

TPBench addresses a critical gap in dialogue compression research by distinguishing between initial goals and dynamically updated constraints, revealing that standard retention metrics often mask "turning-point eviction" errors. The benchmark demonstrates that current-value accuracy drops significantly when turns containing user corrections are removed, whereas irrelevant turn deletion has minimal impact. This work provides essential evaluation protocols for improving long-context models in state-tracking tasks without requiring new crowdsourced data.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

TPBench: A Turning-Point Benchmark for Dialogue Compression

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2610.02736v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A compressor can keep the facts of a dialogue and still drop the turn that changed them. A user corrects a price, reverses a choice, or adds a constraint. We call this failure turning-point eviction. One overall retention score hides it, because that score mixes what the user first wanted with what the user wants now. We introduce TPBench, which evaluates three complementary information targets at shared nominal retention budgets. P1 asks for the user's initial goal. P2 asks for the current value of a slot the user revised. P3 asks for both, in dialogues with a late annotated slot update. The current-value answers come from the human dialogue-state annotations of MultiWOZ and SGD. The initial-goal answer is the first sentence of the first user turn. Neither requires new crowdsourcing. The probe-specific evaluations rank compression methods differently. On the joint probe at a retained fraction of 0.30, every tested compressed method remains below full context with the main Llama reader. Deleting the turn that carries the update sharply lowers current-value accuracy, while deleting one matched irrelevant turn leaves it unchanged. A Mistral reader repeats the P2/P3 rankings and the joint-probe gap. Current-value recovery is tested on an additional corpus, LongMemEval-KU, and on Chinese RiSAWOZ: full context has the highest accuracy, and recency has the highest compressed-method mean in both evaluations.

Abstract:A compressor can keep the facts of a dialogue and still drop the turn that changed them. A user corrects a price, reverses a choice, or adds a constraint. We call this failure turning-point eviction. One overall retention score hides it, because that score mixes what the user first wanted with what the user wants now. We introduce TPBench, which evaluates three complementary information targets at shared nominal retention budgets. P1 asks for the user's initial goal. P2 asks for the current value of a slot the user revised. P3 asks for both, in dialogues with a late annotated slot update. The current-value answers come from the human dialogue-state annotations of MultiWOZ and SGD. The initial-goal answer is the first sentence of the first user turn. Neither requires new crowdsourcing. The probe-specific evaluations rank compression methods differently. On the joint probe at a retained fraction of 0.30, every tested compressed method remains below full context with the main Llama reader. Deleting the turn that carries the update sharply lowers current-value accuracy, while deleting one matched irrelevant turn leaves it unchanged. A Mistral reader repeats the P2/P3 rankings and the joint-probe gap. Current-value recovery is tested on an additional corpus, LongMemEval-KU, and on Chinese RiSAWOZ: full context has the highest accuracy, and recency has the highest compressed-method mean in both evaluations.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2610.02736 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.02736v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.02736 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 318 words

Related coverage