Cited by 148Speech and dialogue systemsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

Dialogue Learning with Human Teaching and Feedback in End-to-End Trainable Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems

Open access
Liu, Bing, Tür, Gokhan, Hakkani-Tür, Dilek, Shah, Pararth, Heck, Larry·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

Bing Liu, Gokhan Tür, Dilek Hakkani-Tür, Pararth Shah, Larry Heck. 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/n18-1187

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • Automated metrics like BLEU and ROUGE often do not correlate with human judgment, making them unreliable for evaluation and training.

    “Automated metrics like BLEU and ROUGE [99] often do not correlate with human judgment [103, 164, 166, 177], making them unreliable for evaluation and training.”

    From RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs (2026) · cites this paper as [103]

    Section 4.5, “Human User Evaluations” (page not supplied), reports ratings by human judges, while section 4.4 reports task-success and dialogue-state metrics. Neither compares automated metrics with human judgments or says they are unreliable for evaluation or training. Searches for BLEU, ROUGE, and correlation found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    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

2 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Milica Gašić, Catherine Breslin, Matthew Henderson, Dongho Kim, Martin Szummer, Blaise Thomson, Pirros Tsiakoulis, and Steve Young. 2013. On- line policy optimisation of bayesian spoken dialogue systems via human interaction. In ICASSP.
  2. Milica Gasic and Steve Young. 2014. Gaussian pro- cesses for pomdp-based dialogue manager optimiza- tion. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing .
  3. Matthew Henderson, Blaise Thomson, and Steve Young. 2014b. Robust dialog state tracking using delexicalised recurrent neural networks and unsu- pervised gate. In IEEE SLT.
  4. Antoine Raux, Brian Langner, Dan Bohus, Alan W Black, and Maxine Eskenazi. 2005. Lets go pub- lic! taking a spoken dialog system to the real world. In Interspeech.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, B., Tür, G., Hakkani-Tür, D., Shah, P., & Heck, L.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Google (United States) (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
2060-2069
OpenAlex
W2963567240
Cited by
148
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 6
FWCI
8.88
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 › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
human teaching, human feedback, task-oriented dialogue systems, end-to-end learning

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