Cited by 20Speech and dialogue systemsNatural Language Processing TechniquesTopic Modeling

Slot-consistent NLG for Task-oriented Dialogue Systems with Iterative Rectification Network

Open access
Li, Yangming, Yao, Kaisheng, Qin, Libo, Che, Wanxiang, Li, Xiaolong, Liu, Ting·2020·Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

Data-driven approaches using neural networks have achieved promising performances in natural language generation (NLG).However, neural generators are prone to make mistakes, e.g., neglecting an input slot value and generating a redundant slot value.Prior works refer this to hallucination phenomenon.In this paper, we study slot consistency for building reliable NLG systems with all slot values of input dialogue act (DA) properly generated in output sentences.We propose Iterative Rectification Network (IRN) for improving general NLG systems to produce both correct and fluent responses.It applies a bootstrapping algorithm to sample training candidates and uses reinforcement learning to incorporate discrete reward related to slot inconsistency into training.Comprehensive studies have been conducted on multiple benchmark datasets, showing that the proposed methods have significantly reduced the slot error rate (ERR) for all strong baselines.Human evaluations also have confirmed its effectiveness.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.10

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Intrinsic hallucination can occur between the dialogue manager and natural language generation, where a dialogue act is transformed into a natural language representation.

    “Intrinsic hallucination can occur between the DM and NLG, where a dialogue act such as recommend(NAME= peninsula hotel , AREA= tsim sha tsui ) is transformed into a natural language representation 'the hotel named peninsula hotel is located in tsim sha tsui area.' [10, 152].”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [152]

    The Introduction (p. not available) says NLG converts dialogue acts into natural-language sentences and that neural generators can hallucinate, including by missing or misplacing slots. It does not locate the error specifically between a dialogue manager and NLG, use the term “intrinsic hallucination,” or give the peninsula-hotel example. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Improving slot consistency can help reduce the hallucination phenomenon of missing or misplacing slot values in generated templates.

    “Improving the slot consistency can help reduce the hallucination phenomenon of missing or misplacing slot values in generated templates.”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as Li et al. [152]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Ondřej Dušek and Filip Jurčíček. 2016. Sequence- to-sequence generation for spoken dialogue via deep syntax trees and strings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05491. · arXiv
  2. Juraj Juraska, Panagiotis Karagiannis, Kevin K. Bow- den, and Marilyn A. Walker. 2018. A deep en- semble model with slot alignment for sequence-to- sequence natural language generation. In Proceed- ings of NAACL-HLT, pages 152-162.
  3. Franc ¸ois Mairesse and Steve Young. 2014. Stochas- tic language generation in dialogue using fac- tored language models. Computational Linguistics, 40(4):763-799.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, Y., Yao, K., Qin, L., Che, W., Li, X., & Liu, T.
Affiliations
  • Harbin Institute of Technology (CN)
  • Ant Group (China) (CN)
Corresponding author
Liu, Ting
Venue
Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Published
2020
Pages
97-106
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3034643843
Cited by
19
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.24
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61976072, 61632011, 61772153)
  • Ant Financial Services Group
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
natural language generation, task-oriented dialogue systems, reinforcement learning, hallucinations, response fluency

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