Cited by 336Speech and dialogue systemsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

A survey of statistical user simulation techniques for reinforcement-learning of dialogue management strategies

SCHATZMANN, JOST, WEILHAMMER, KARL, STUTTLE, MATT, YOUNG, STEVE·2006·The Knowledge Engineering Review

Abstract

Within the broad field of spoken dialogue systems, the application of machine-learning approaches to dialogue management strategy design is a rapidly growing research area. The main motivation is the hope of building systems that learn through trial-and-error interaction what constitutes a good dialogue strategy. Training of such systems could in theory be done using human users or using corpora of human–computer dialogue, but in practice the typically vast space of possible dialogue states and strategies cannot be explored without the use of automatic user simulation tools. This requirement for training statistical dialogue models has created an interesting new application area for predictive statistical user modelling and a variety of different techniques for simulating user behaviour have been presented in the literature ranging from simple Markov models to Bayesian networks. The development of reliable user simulation tools is critical to further progress on automatic dialogue management design but it holds many challenges, some of which have been encountered in other areas of current research on statistical user modelling, such as the problem of ‘concept drift’, the problem of combining content-based and collaboration-based modelling techniques, and user model evaluation. The latter topic is of particular interest, because simulation-based learning is currently one of the few applications of statistical user modelling that employs both direct ‘accuracy-based’ and indirect ‘utility-based’ evaluation techniques. In this paper, we briefly summarize the role of the dialogue manager in a spoken dialogue system, give a short introduction to reinforcement-learning of dialogue management strategies and review the literature on user modelling for simulation-based strategy learning. We further describe recent work on user model evaluation and discuss some of the current research issues in simulation-based learning from a user modelling perspective.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0269888906000944

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Data from interactions with real users is typically not sufficient for exploring the large space of potential dialogue policies.

    “Since data from interactions with real users is typically not sufficient for exploring the large space of potential dialogue policies, systems are typically trained with simulated users (Schatzmann et al., 2006).”

    From Reducing working memory load in spoken dialogue systems (2009) · cites this paper as Schatzmann et al., 2006

  • Spoken dialogue systems are typically trained with simulated users.

    “Since data from interactions with real users is typically not sufficient for exploring the large space of potential dialogue policies, systems are typically trained with simulated users (Schatzmann et al., 2006).”

    From Reducing working memory load in spoken dialogue systems (2009) · cites this paper as Schatzmann et al., 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
SCHATZMANN, J., WEILHAMMER, K., STUTTLE, M., & YOUNG, S.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
The Knowledge Engineering Review
Published
2006-06
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
97-126
ISSN
  • 0269-8889 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8005
OpenAlex
W2168490009
Cited by
336
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 22
FWCI
21.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Knowledge Engineering Review (publishedVersion)
  • Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
user simulation, reinforcement learning, dialogue management, spoken dialogue systems, simulation-based training, concept drift, Markov model, Bayesian networks, dialogue strategies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review