Cited by 38Speech and dialogue systemsTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

Cue-CoT: Chain-of-thought Prompting for Responding to In-depth Dialogue Questions with LLMs

Open access
Wang, Hongru, Wang, Rui, Mi, Fei, Deng, Yang, Wang, Zezhong, Liang, Bin, Xu, Ruifeng, Wong, Kam-Fai·2023·Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, greatly empower dialogue systems with strong language understanding and generation capabilities.However, most of the previous works prompt the LLMs to directly generate a response based on the dialogue context, overlooking the underlying linguistic cues about the user status exhibited in the context.Such in-depth dialogue scenarios are challenging for existing LLMs to figure out the user's hidden needs and respond satisfactorily through a single-step inference.To this end, we propose a novel linguistic cue-based chain-of-thoughts (Cue-CoT), which enhances the LLMs inference with an intermediate reasoning step to find cues exhibited in the dialogue, aiming to provide a more personalized and engaging response.To evaluate the approach, we build a benchmark with in-depth dialogue questions, consisting of 6 datasets in both Chinese and English, targeting 3 major linguistic cues during the conversation: personality, emotion, and psychology.We conduct extensive experiments on the proposed benchmark with 5 LLMs under both zero-shot and one-shot settings.Empirical results demonstrate our proposed Cue-CoT method outperforms standard prompting methods in terms of both helpfulness and acceptability on all datasets.

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/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.806

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • Dialogue CoT was introduced to assess in-depth dialogue, incorporating Explicit CoT and CoT.

    “To effectively assess in-depth dialogue, Wang et al. [205] introduced the Dialogue CoT, incorporating two efficient dialogue strategies: Explicit CoT and CoT.”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [205]

    The contributions passage (page not available in our copy) says the paper proposes two dialogue CoT approaches and builds a benchmark for evaluating in-depth dialogue responses. But it names the approaches O-Cue CoT and M-Cue CoT, not Explicit CoT and CoT. Section 3.1 likewise lists O-Cue CoT and M-Cue CoT as the prompting schemes. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, H., Wang, R., Mi, F., Deng, Y., Wang, Z., Liang, B., Xu, R., & Wong, K.-F.
Affiliations
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Harbin Institute of Technology (CN)
  • Huawei Technologies (China) (CN)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
Wong, Kam-Fai
Venue
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023
Published
2023
Pages
12047-12064
OpenAlex
W4389524308
Cited by
38
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 1
FWCI
6.73
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge (InK) (Singapore Management University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62006062, 62176076, 2022B1212010005)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2023A1515012922)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (4055209)
  • Key Technologies Research and Development Program
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
chain-of-thought prompting, large language models, linguistic cues, emotion cues, dialogue systems, personalized responses

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