Cited by 1,177Speech and dialogue systemsAI in Service InteractionsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

Personalizing Dialogue Agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too?

Open access
Zhang, Saizheng, Dinan, Emily, Urbanek, Jack, Szlam, Arthur, Kiela, Douwe, Weston, Jason·2018·Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, Jason Weston. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (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/p18-1205

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Existing NLP datasets do not cover the wide breadth of possible conversational failure cases due to their emphasis on correct data for training.

    “We found that existing NLP datasets do not cover the wide breadth of possible conversational failure cases due to their emphasis on correct data for training.”

    From A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant Failures (2023) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Introduction and Related Work say existing dialogue datasets have limitations that contribute to problems such as inconsistent personality and weak long-term coherence. They do not say that NLP datasets fail to cover the wide breadth of possible conversational failure cases, or attribute such a gap to an emphasis on correct training data. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Persona consistency has been the center of attention and is one of the most obvious cases of self-contradiction regarding the character of the dialogue system.

    “Persona consistency has been the center of attention [144, 312] and it is one of the most obvious cases of self-contradiction regarding the character of the dialogue system.”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [312]

  • The PersonaChat datasets have accelerated research into persona consistency.

    “The PersonaChat datasets [47, 312] have accelerated research into persona consistency [96, 128, 178, 284, 296, 307, 318].”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [312]

  • Existing datasets like personalized chats sourced through crowdsourcing or psychological dialogues lack the property of containing valuable personal memories.

    “especially considering that existing datasets like personalized chats sourced through crowdsourcing (Zhang et al., 2018) or psychological dialogues (Zhong et al., 2024) lack this property.”
  • Standard NLP models are often evaluated on large datasets of coherent text-based questions and answers or paired written dialogue.

    “Standard NLP models are often evaluated on large datasets of coherent text-based questions and answers [48, 49] or paired written dialogue [68].”

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: 25

  1. Antoine Bordes and Jason Weston. 2016. Learn- ing end-to-end goal-oriented dialog. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.07683. · arXiv
  2. Jesse Dodge, Andreea Gane, Xiang Zhang, Antoine Bordes, Sumit Chopra, Alexander Miller, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2015. Evaluating prereq- uisite qualities for learning end-to-end dialog sys- tems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06931. · arXiv
  3. Robin IM Dunbar, Anna Marriott, and Neil DC Dun- can. 1997. Human conversational behavior. Human nature, 8(3):231-246.
  4. Chaitanya K Joshi, Fei Mi, and Boi Faltings. 2017. Personalization in goal-oriented dialog. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.07503. · arXiv
  5. Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2015. A diversity-promoting objec- tive function for neural conversation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.03055. · arXiv
  6. Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Georgios P Spithourakis, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2016a. A persona-based neural conversation model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.06155. · arXiv
  7. Jiwei Li, Will Monroe, Alan Ritter, Michel Galley, Jianfeng Gao, and Dan Jurafsky. 2016b. Deep re- inforcement learning for dialogue generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01541. · arXiv
  8. Chia-Wei Liu, Ryan Lowe, Iulian V Serban, Michael Noseworthy, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. How not to evaluate your dialogue system: An empirical study of unsupervised evaluation met- rics for dialogue response generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08023. · arXiv
  9. Ryan Lowe, Nissan Pow, Iulian Serban, and Joelle Pineau. 2015. The ubuntu dialogue corpus: A large dataset for research in unstructured multi-turn dia- logue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.08909. · arXiv
  10. Alexander Miller, Adam Fisch, Jesse Dodge, Amir- Hossein Karimi, Antoine Bordes, and Jason We- ston. 2016. Key-value memory networks for directly reading documents. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03126. · arXiv
  11. Mor Naaman, Jeffrey Boase, and Chih-Hui Lai. 2010. Is it really about me?: message content in social awareness streams. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported coopera- tive work, pages 189-192. ACM.
  12. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 confer- ence on empirical methods in natural language pro- cessing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543.
  13. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05250. · arXiv
  14. Iulian V Serban, Chinnadhurai Sankar, Mathieu Ger- main, Saizheng Zhang, Zhouhan Lin, Sandeep Sub- ramanian, Taesup Kim, Michael Pieper, Sarath Chandar, Nan Rosemary Ke, et al. 2017a. A deep reinforcement learning chatbot. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.02349. · arXiv
  15. Iulian Vlad Serban, Ryan Lowe, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. 2015. A survey of available corpora for building data-driven dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.05742. · arXiv
  16. Iulian Vlad Serban, Ryan Lowe, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. Generative deep neural net- works for dialogue: A short review. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.06216. · arXiv
  17. Alessandro Sordoni, Michel Galley, Michael Auli, Chris Brockett, Yangfeng Ji, Margaret Mitchell, Jian-Yun Nie, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2015. A neural network approach to context-sensitive gen- eration of conversational responses. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.06714. · arXiv
  18. Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Jason Weston, Rob Fergus, et al. 2015. End-to-end memory networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 2440-2448.
  19. Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural net- works. In Advances in neural information process- ing systems, pages 3104-3112.
  20. Oriol Vinyals and Quoc Le. 2015. A neural conversa- tional model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.05869. · arXiv
  21. Ellen M Voorhees et al. 1999. The trec-8 question an- swering track report. In Trec, volume 99, pages 77- 82.
  22. Joseph Weizenbaum. 1966. Elizaa computer program for the study of natural language communication be- tween man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1):36-45.
  23. Ledell Wu, Adam Fisch, Sumit Chopra, Keith Adams, Antoine Bordes, and Jason Weston. 2017. Starspace: Embed all the things! arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.03856. · arXiv
  24. Steve Young, Milica Gašić, Blaise Thomson, and Ja- son D Williams. 2013. Pomdp-based statistical spo- ken dialog systems: A review. Proceedings of the IEEE, 101(5):1160-1179.
  25. Steve J Young. 2000. Probabilistic methods in spoken- dialogue systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 358(1769):1389-1402.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, S., Dinan, E., Urbanek, J., Szlam, A., Kiela, D., & Weston, J.
Affiliations
  • Mila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute (CA)
  • Meta (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Saizheng
Venue
Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2018
Pages
2204-2213
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2963825865
Cited by
1,177
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 73 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 231 · 2022: 191 · 2021: 216 · 2020: 164 · 2019: 97 · 2018: 16
FWCI
50.31
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
dialogue agents, personalization, chatbots, dialogue modeling

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