CLARIE: Handling Clarification Requests in a Dialogue System

Purver, Matthew

doi:10.1007/s11168-006-9006-y

Cited by 42 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This class contains intended content queries (see example (6a)), repetition requests (example (6b)) and relevance clarifications (example (6c)). In this article, we will not consider this class in detail, mainly because of existing, detailed work on this subject (see e.g., Purver 2006;Ginzburg 2012 …”

Section: Clarification Requests (Cr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We start by discussing CRs since they have been studied in great detail, see Ginzburg and Cooper 2004;Schlangen 2004;Purver 2006;Ginzburg et al 2014; we will summarize briefly the most detailed account we are aware of, that provided in Ginzburg 2012. This will provide tools enabling us to analyse IGNORE-type responses.…”

Section: Clarification Requestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It provides formal underpinnings for the information state approach to dialogue management (Larsson and Traum 2003) and underlies dialogue systems such as GoDiS (Larsson 2002) and CLARIE (Purver 2006). On the approach developed in KoS, there is actually no single context.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Query responses

Łupkowski

Ginzburg

2017

JLM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keywords: questions, query responses, corpus study, KoSIn this article we consider the phenomenon of answering a query with a query. Although such answers are common, no large-scale, corpusbased characterization exists, with the exception of clarification requests. After briefly reviewing different theoretical approaches on this subject, we present a corpus study of query responses in the British National Corpus and develop a taxonomy for query responses. We identify a variety of response categories that have not been formalized in previous dialogue work, particularly those relevant to adversarial interaction. We show that different response categories have significantly different rates of subsequent answer provision. We provide a formal analysis of the response categories within the framework of KoS.

show abstract

Section: Clarification Requests (Cr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Clarification Requestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Query responses

Łupkowski

Ginzburg

2017

JLM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Models of repair covering repair initiations proposed in (Purver, 2004) and (Schlangen, 2004) and extended in follow-up work (Purver, 2006;Ginzburg et al, 2007;Ginzburg, 2012) were motivated by Conversation Analysis research. However, other approaches for modelling were preferred because of the insufficient operationalisation of CA findings for computational modelling.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A data-driven model of explanations for a chatbot that helps to practice conversation in a foreign language

Höhn¹

2017

Proceedings of the 18th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes a model of otherinitiated self-repair for a chatbot that helps to practice conversation in a foreign language. The model was developed using a corpus of instant messaging conversations between German native and non-native speakers. Conversation Analysis helped to create computational models from a small number of examples. The model has been validated in an AIML-based chatbot. Unlike typical retrieval-based dialogue systems, the explanations are generated at run-time from a linguistic database.

show abstract

“…The term miscommunication was introduced to distinguish between non-understandings (the system could not match user's input to a representation) and misunderstandings (the system matched user's input to a wrong representation) (Dzikovska et al, 2009;. These repair types correspond to other-initiated self-repair when the user is the trouble-speaker.Clarification requests in AI and NLP publications should not be confused with clarification requests in SLA publications where this term is used to refer to only a particular form of corrective feedback (Lyster et al, 2013), or to a dialogue move in meaning negotiations (Varonis and Gass, 1985).Emphasising the importance of correct recognition of user's clarification requests, Purver (2004) provides a study of various types of clarification requests, see also follow-up publications (Purver, 2006;Ginzburg et al, 2007;Ginzburg, 2012). Purver (2004) uses the HPSG framework to cover the main classes of the identified classification scheme.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Proceedings of the 18th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We are excited to welcome you to this year's SIGdial Conference, the 18th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue. We are pleased to hold the conference in Saarbrücken on August 15-17th, co-located with SemDial 2017, and in close proximity to both INTERSPEECH 2017 and YRRSDS 2017, the Young Researchers' Roundtable on Spoken Dialog Systems.The SIGdial conference remains a premier publication venue for research in discourse and dialogue. This year, the program includes oral presentations, poster sessions, and one demo session. SIGdial 2017 also hosts three special sessions, two joint with SemDial 2017.We received 113 submissions this year. In only one previous year has there been a greater number of submissions to SIGdial. All long and short papers received at least 3 reviews. We carefully considered both the numeric ratings and the tenor of the comments in making our selections for the program. Overall, the members of the Program Committee did an excellent job in reviewing the submitted papers. We thank them for their important role in selecting the accepted papers and for helping to come up with a high quality program for the conference. We also thank Pierre Lison, Mentoring Chair for SIGdial 2017, for his dedicated work on the mentoring process. The goal of mentoring is to assist authors of papers that contain important ideas but lack clarity. In line with the SIGdial tradition, our aim has been to create a balanced program that accommodates as many favorably rated papers as possible. We accepted 29 long papers, 11 short papers and 7 demo presentations. These numbers give an overall acceptance rate of 41.6%. The rates separately for types of papers are 42% for long papers, 30% for short and 87% for demo submissions. Of the long papers, 18 were presented as oral presentations. The remaining 11 long papers and all the short papers were presented as posters, split into two poster sessions.This year SIGdial has three special sessions on topics of growing interest. The chosen sessions were (i) the Special Session on Negotiation Dialog organized by Amanda Stent, Aasish Pappu, Diane Litman and Marilyn Walker; (ii) the Second WOCHAT Special Session on Chatbots and Conversational Agents organized by Ryuichiro Higashinaka, Ron Artstein, Rafael E. Banchs, and Wolfgang Minker; and (iii) Special Session on Natural Language Generation for Dialog Systems organized by Marilyn Walker, Verena Rieser, Vera Demberg, Dietrich Klakow, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, David M. Howcroft and Shereen Oraby. These specialized topics brought diverse paper submissions to our technical program. At the conference, the special sessions also featured panel discussions and position talks, allowing for active engagement of the conference participants. This year, two of these special sessions, the one on negotiation and on conversational agents, are part of the joint SIGdial/SemDial program at the conference bringing both communities to participate in them. This year's SIGdial conference runs 3 full days compared to previous year...

show abstract

CLARIE: Handling Clarification Requests in a Dialogue System

Cited by 42 publications

References 24 publications

Query responses

Query responses

A data-driven model of explanations for a chatbot that helps to practice conversation in a foreign language

Proceedings of the 18th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About