Cited by 141Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSpeech and dialogue systems

Interpretation of Natural Language Rules in Conversational Machine Reading

Open access
Saeidi, Marzieh, Bartolo, Max, Lewis, Patrick, Singh, Sameer, Rocktäschel, Tim, Sheldon, Mike, Bouchard, Guillaume, Riedel, Sebastian·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Marzieh Saeidi, Max Bartolo, Patrick Lewis, Sameer Singh, Tim Rocktäschel, Mike Sheldon, Guillaume Bouchard, Sebastian Riedel. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2018.

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/d18-1233

Cites

35 of 35 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?

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: 4

  1. Abhishek Das, Satwik Kottur, Khushi Gupta, Avi Singh, Deshraj Yadav, Jos MF Moura, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. 2017. Visual dialog. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, volume 2.
  2. Matthew E Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word repre- sentations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05365. · arXiv
  3. Joseph Weizenbaum. 1966. ELIZAa computer pro- gram for the study of natural language communica- tion between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1):36-45.
  4. Johannes Welbl, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. Constructing datasets for multi-hop reading comprehension across documents. Transac- tions of ACL, abs/1710.06481. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saeidi, M., Bartolo, M., Lewis, P., Singh, S., Rocktäschel, T., Sheldon, M., Bouchard, G., & Riedel, S.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • University College London (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2018
Pages
2087-2097
OpenAlex
W2891304738
Cited by
141
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 3
FWCI
8.06
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
natural language rules, rule interpretation, question answering, rule-based question answering, chatbots

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