Cited by 77Speech and dialogue systemsTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

Increasing Faithfulness in Knowledge-Grounded Dialogue with Controllable Features

Open access
Rashkin, Hannah, Reitter, David, Tomar, Gaurav Singh, Das, Dipanjan·2021·Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Hannah Rashkin, David Reitter, Gaurav Singh Tomar, Dipanjan Das. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2021.

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/v1/2021.acl-long.58

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • It is acceptable for open-domain dialogue systems to respond in chit-chat style, subjective style, or with a relevant fact not necessarily present in the user input, history or provided knowledge source, which improves engagingness and diversity.

    “For instance, it is acceptable for open-domain dialogue systems to respond in chit-chat style, subjective style [214], or with a relevant fact that is not necessarily present in the user input, history or provided knowledge source - this improves the engagingness and diversity of the dialogue generation.”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [214]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Rashkin et al. (2021) showed that faithfulness in knowledge-grounded dialogues can be improved by using controllable features based on NLI model predictions.

    “Also relevant to our work, Rashkin et al. (2021) showed that faithfulness in knowledgegrounded dialogues can be improved by using controllable features based on NLI model predictions.”

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

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rashkin, H., Reitter, D., Tomar, G. S., & Das, D.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2021
Pages
704-718
OpenAlex
W3176098057
Cited by
74
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 2
FWCI
7.85
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
knowledge-grounded dialogue, faithfulness, dialogue systems, knowledge grounding, controllable generation

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