Cited by 250Speech and dialogue systemsNatural Language Processing TechniquesTopic Modeling

Dialogue Natural Language Inference

Open access
Welleck, Sean, Weston, Jason, Szlam, Arthur, Cho, Kyunghyun·2019·Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

Consistency is a long standing issue faced by dialogue models. In this paper, we frame the consistency of dialogue agents as natural language inference (NLI) and create a new natural language inference dataset called Dialogue NLI. We propose a method which demonstrates that a model trained on Dialogue NLI can be used to improve the consistency of a dialogue model, and evaluate the method with human evaluation and with automatic metrics on a suite of evaluation sets designed to measure a dialogue model's consistency.

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/p19-1363

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • Several works have proposed evaluation metrics for measuring consistency, such as using natural language inference, training learnable evaluation metrics, or releasing an additional test set for coherence.

    “Recently, several works have proposed evaluation metrics for measuring consistency, such as using natural language inference (NLI) [58, 278], training learnable evaluation metrics [309], or releasing an additional test set for coherence [14].”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [278]

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

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Welleck, S., Weston, J., Szlam, A., & Cho, K.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • Meta (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Welleck, Sean
Venue
Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Published
2019
Pages
3731-3741
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2962989446
Cited by
249
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 8
FWCI
13.39
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
natural language inference, dialogue agents, consistency improvement, human evaluation

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