Hello everyone!
We had been working on Rasa 2.3.4 and 2.4.* but recently we decided to upgrade to the latest version. We train a bot that was working perfectly on those versions using 2.6.2, but the response selector now gives us very low confidence for every question, the only change that we did was actually a suggestion that showed when we train:
/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.7/lib/python3.7/site-packages/rasa/utils/train_utils.py:455: UserWarning: constrain_similarities is set to
False
. It is recommended to set it toTrue
when using cross-entropy loss. It will be set toTrue
by default, Rasa Open Source 3.0.0 onwards. category=UserWarning, /Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.7/lib/python3.7/site-packages/rasa/utils/train_utils.py:428: UserWarning: model_confidence is set tosoftmax
. It is recommended to try usingmodel_confidence=linear_norm
to make it easier to tune fallback thresholds. category=UserWarning,
But now, all my FAQs get very low confidence (0.14 - 0.16) and with 2.4.* we get values above 0.75.
This is my config file:
language: en
pipeline:
- name: WhitespaceTokenizer
- name: RegexFeaturizer
- name: LexicalSyntacticFeaturizer
- name: CountVectorsFeaturizer
analyzer: char_wb
min_ngram: 1
max_ngram: 4
- name: DIETClassifier
epochs: 100
model_confidence: linear_norm
constrain_similarities: True
- name: EntitySynonymMapper
- name: voiq_response_selector.VoiqResponseSelector
retrieval_intent: faq
epochs: 150
nlu_threshold: 0.8
scale_loss: False
model_confidence: linear_norm
constrain_similarities: True
- name: FallbackClassifier
threshold: 0.7
policies:
- name: MemoizationPolicy
max_history: 5
- name: TEDPolicy
max_history: 5
epochs: 100
model_confidence: linear_norm
constrain_similarities: True
- name: RulePolicy
core_fallback_threshold: 0.5
core_fallback_action_name: action_default_fallback
enable_fallback_prediction: True
This is the usual result for the ResponseSelector:
Epochs: 100%|████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████| 150/150 [01:33<00:00, 1.60it/s, t_loss=4.9, r_acc=0.998]
Any idea what’s going on? Or how can I improve the results? For the moment, I’ll keep using 2.4.*
Thanks