Cited by 65Speech and dialogue systemsAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

Bot-Adversarial Dialogue for Safe Conversational Agents

Open access
Xu, Jing, Ju, Da, Li, Margaret, Boureau, Y-Lan, Weston, Jason, Dinan, Emily·2021·Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies

Abstract

Jing Xu, Da Ju, Margaret Li, Y-Lan Boureau, Jason Weston, Emily Dinan. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 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.naacl-main.235

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • Gendered and racial disparities have been documented in a number of language technologies.

    “Unsurprisingly, gendered and racial disparities have been documented in a number of language technologies [37, 79, 141]”

    From Data Governance in the Age of Large-Scale Data-Driven Language Technology (2022) · cites this paper as [141]

    The Introduction says dialogue models can learn biased language, and §7 Ethical Considerations reports racial bias in hate-speech datasets. The paper does not document gendered disparities or establish disparities across a number of language technologies; its mention of gender in Appendix A.2 defines a hate-speech category, not a measured disparity. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Emily Dinan, Stephen Roller, Kurt Shuster, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and Jason Weston. 2019b. Wiz- ard of Wikipedia: Knowledge-powered conversa- tional agents. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations.
  2. ACL.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xu, J., Ju, D., Li, M., Boureau, Y.-L., Weston, J., & Dinan, E.
Affiliations
Meta (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
Published
2021
Pages
2950-2968
OpenAlex
W3171850892
Cited by
64
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 1
FWCI
5.43
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
chatbots, safety, dialogue evaluation

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