Cited by 64Speech and dialogue systemsNatural Language Processing TechniquesSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Unified Pragmatic Models for Generating and Following Instructions

Open access
Fried, Daniel, Andreas, Jacob, Klein, Dan·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers)

Abstract

Daniel Fried, Jacob Andreas, Dan Klein. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers). 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/n18-1177

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • SFT can lead to harmful and unintended behavior, making it easier to prompt such models to elicit them.

    “This can lead to harmful and unintended behavior, making it easier to prompt such models to elicit them [50,142].”

    From RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs (2026) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Introduction describes an instruction-following model reaching an unintended position because it misinterprets an ambiguous command. The paper does not connect supervised fine-tuning to harmful behavior or to prompts that make such behavior easier to elicit; searches for those terms found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Anne H. Anderson, Miles Bader, Ellen Gurman Bard, Elizabeth Boyle, Gwyneth Doherty, Simon Garrod, Stephen Isard, Jacqueline Kowtko, Jan McAllister, Jim Miller, et al. 1991. The HCRC map task corpus. Language and speech 34(4):351-366.
  2. Jacob Andreas and Dan Klein. 2015. Alignment- based compositional semantics for instruction fol- lowing. In Proceedings of the Conference on Em- pirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
  3. Yoav Artzi, Dipanjan Das, and Slav Petrov. 2014. Learning compact lexicons for CCG semantic pars- ing. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics.
  4. Yoav Artzi and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2013. Weakly su- pervised learning of semantic parsers for mapping instructions to actions. Transactions of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics 1(1):49-62.
  5. S.R.K. Branavan, Harr Chen, Luke S. Zettlemoyer, and Regina Barzilay. 2009. Reinforcement learning for mapping instructions to actions. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 82-90.
  6. Donna Byron, Alexander Koller, Kristina Striegnitz, Justine Cassell, Robert Dale, Johanna Moore, and Jon Oberlander. 2009. Report on the first NLG chal- lenge on generating instructions in virtual environ- ments (GIVE). In Proceedings of the 12th european workshop on natural language generation. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics, pages 165-173.
  7. David L Chen. 2012. Fast online lexicon learning for grounded language acquisition. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. pages 430-439.
  8. David L. Chen and Raymond J. Mooney. 2011. Learn- ing to interpret natural language navigation instruc- tions from observations. In Proceedings of the Meet- ing of the Association for the Advancement of Artifi- cial Intelligence. volume 2, pages 1-2.
  9. Robert Dale, Sabine Geldof, and Jean-Philippe Prost. 2005. Using natural language generation in auto- matic route. Journal of Research and practice in Information Technology 37(1):89.
  10. Andrea F. Daniele, Mohit Bansal, and Matthew R. Wal- ter. 2017. Navigational instruction generation as in- verse reinforcement learning with neural machine translation. Proceedings of Human-Robot Interac- tion .
  11. Yarin Gal and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2016. A theoret- ically grounded application of dropout in recurrent neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 (NIPS).
  12. Xavier Glorot and Yoshua Bengio. 2010. Understand- ing the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. In AISTATS. volume 9, pages 249-256.
  13. Robert Goeddel and Edwin Olson. 2012. Dart: A particle-based method for generating easy-to-follow directions. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on. IEEE, pages 1213-1219.
  14. Dave Golland, Percy Liang, and Dan Klein. 2010. A game-theoretic approach to generating spatial de- scriptions. In Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro- cessing. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 410-419.
  15. Noah D Goodman and Andreas Stuhlmüller. 2013. Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language un- derstanding as social cognition. Topics in cognitive science 5(1):173-184.
  16. H. P. Grice. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, editors, Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pages 41-58.
  17. Kelvin Guu, Panupong Pasupat, Evan Zheran Liu, and Percy Liang. 2017. From language to pro- grams: Bridging reinforcement learning and maxi- mum marginal likelihood. In Association for Com- putational Linguistics (ACL).
  18. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation 9(8):1735-1780.
  19. Sahar Kazemzadeh, Vicente Ordonez, Mark Matten, and Tamara L Berg. 2014. ReferItGame: Referring to objects in photographs of natural scenes. In Pro- ceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. pages 787-798.
  20. Alexander Koller, Kristina Striegnitz, Andrew Gargett, Donna Byron, Justine Cassell, Robert Dale, Johanna Moore, and Jon Oberlander. 2010. Report on the second NLG challenge on generating instructions in virtual environments (GIVE-2). In Proceedings of the 6th international natural language generation conference. Association for Computational Linguis- tics, pages 243-250.
  21. Emiel Krahmer and Mariët Theune, editors. 2010. Em- pirical Methods in Natural Language Generation: Data-oriented Methods and Empirical Evaluation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  22. Mike Lewis, Denis Yarats, Yann N Dauphin, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. 2017. Deal or no deal? end-to-end learning for negotiation dialogues. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).
  23. Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2016. A diversity-promoting objec- tive function for neural conversation models. In Pro- ceedings of the Annual Meeting of the North Amer- ican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
  24. Reginald Long, Panupong Pasupat, and Percy Liang. 2016. Simpler context-dependent logical forms via model projections. In Association for Computa- tional Linguistics (ACL).
  25. Gary Wai Keung Look. 2008. Cognitively-inspired di- rection giving. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  26. Matt MacMahon, Brian Stankiewicz, and Benjamin Kuipers. 2006. Walk the talk: Connecting language, knowledge, and action in route instructions. Pro- ceedings of the Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence 2(6):4.
  27. Hongyuan Mei, Mohit Bansal, and Matthew Walter. 2016. Listen, attend, and walk: Neural mapping of navigational instructions to action sequences. In Proceedings of the Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
  28. Will Monroe and Christopher Potts. 2015. Learning in the Rational Speech Acts model. In Proceedings of 20th Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, Amsterdam.
  29. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei- Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic eval- uation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting on association for compu- tational linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318.
  30. Christopher Potts. 2011. Pragmatics, Oxford Univer- sity Press.
  31. Nathaniel J Smith, Noah Goodman, and Michael Frank. 2013. Learning and using language via recur- sive pragmatic reasoning about other agents. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems. pages 3039-3047.
  32. Kristina Striegnitz, Alexandre Denis, Andrew Gargett, Konstantina Garoufi, Alexander Koller, and Mariët Theune. 2011. Report on the second second chal- lenge on generating instructions in virtual environ- ments GIVE-2.5. In Proceedings of the 13th Euro- pean workshop on natural language generation. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics, pages 270- 279.
  33. Jong-Chyi Su, Chenyun Wu, Huaizu Jiang, and Subhransu Maji. 2017. Reasoning about fine- grained attribute phrases using reference games. In International Conference on Computer Vision.
  34. Stefanie Tellex, Thomas Kollar, Steven Dickerson, Matthew R. Walter, Ashis Gopal Banerjee, Seth Teller, and Nicholas Roy. 2011. Understanding nat- ural language commands for robotic navigation and mobile manipulation. In In Proceedings of the Na- tional Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
  35. Ramakrishna Vedantam, Samy Bengio, Kevin Murphy, Devi Parikh, and Gal Chechik. 2017. Context-aware captions from context-agnostic supervision. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). volume 3.
  36. Sida I. Wang, Percy Liang, and Christopher D. Man- ning. 2016. Learning language games through inter- action. In Association for Computational Linguis- tics (ACL).
  37. Tom Williams, Gordon Briggs, Bradley Oosterveld, and Matthias Scheutz. 2015. Going beyond lit- eral command-based instructions: Extending robotic natural language interaction capabilities. In AAAI. pages 1387-1393.
  38. Lei Yu, Phil Blunsom, Chris Dyer, Edward Grefen- stette, and Tomas Kocisky. 2017a. The neural noisy channel. International Conference on Learning Representations .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fried, D., Andreas, J., & Klein, D.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers)
Published
2018
Pages
1951-1963
OpenAlex
W2962846267
Cited by
64
References
5
Citations by year
2024: 5 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.27
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)
Funders
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Keywords
instruction following, instruction generation, natural language understanding, natural language 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