Topical-Chat: Towards Knowledge-Grounded Open-Domain Conversations
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 [25]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models
Srivastava, A., Rastogi, A., Rao, A., Shoeb, A. A. M., Abid, A., Fisch, A., Brown, A. R., Santoro, A., Gupta, A., Garriga-Alonso, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.04615 · Cited by 569 · see citing works
Self-citationChallenges in building intelligent open-domain dialog systems
Huang, M., Zhu, X., & Gao, J. (2020) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3383123 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
Internet-Augmented Dialogue Generation
Komeili, M., Shuster, K., & Weston, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.579 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
USR: An Unsupervised and Reference Free Evaluation Metric for Dialog Generation
Mehri, S., & Eskenazi, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.64 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
AI-based conversational agents: A scoping review from technologies to future directions
Kusal, S., Patil, S., Choudrie, J., Kotecha, K., Mishra, S., & Abraham, A. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3201144 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Towards trustworthy LLMs: a review on debiasing and dehallucinating in large language models
Lin, Z., Guan, S., Zhang, W., Zhang, H., Li, Y., & Zhang, H. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10896-y · Cited by 141 · see citing works
On the Origin of Hallucinations in Conversational Models: Is it the Datasets or the Models?
Dziri, N., Milton, S., Yu, M., Zaiane, O., & Reddy, S. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.387 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Honovich, O., Choshen, L., Aharoni, R., Neeman, E., Szpektor, I., & Abend, O. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.619 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
“This is the case in Topical-Chat, in which each dialogue is accompanied by Washington Post articles and fun-facts from Red-dit in addition to pages from Wikipedia; and in the DNLI dataset, which deals with persona and self-consistency of dialogue systems and does not contain any references to Wikipedia.”
MethodInfluentialIncreasing Faithfulness in Knowledge-Grounded Dialogue with Controllable Features
Rashkin, H., Reitter, D., Tomar, G. S., & Das, D. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.58 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Reducing Conversational Agents’ Overconfidence Through Linguistic Calibration
Mielke, S. J., Szlam, A., Dinan, E., & Boureau, Y.-L. (2022) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00494 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Reducing conversational agents' overconfidence through linguistic calibration
Mielke, S. J., Szlam, A., Dinan, E., & Boureau, Y.-L. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.14983 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate
Chan, C.-M., Chen, W., Su, Y., Yu, J., Xue, W., Zhang, S., Fu, J., & Liu, Z. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.07201 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
“We evaluate ChatEval on two benchmarks, FairEval and Topical-Chat which represent the categories of open-ended question answer and dialogue response generation, respectively.”
MethodLearning towards conversational AI: A survey
Fu, T., Gao, S., Zhao, X., Wen, J.-R., & Yan, R. (2022) · AI Open · doi:10.1016/j.aiopen.2022.02.001 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant Failures
Baughan, A., Wang, X., Liu, A., Mercurio, A., Chen, J., & Ma, X. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581152 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
“We frst explored benchmark datasets in NLP, which contain a large number of either questions and answers [48–50], or conversational dialogue [25, 57, 68].”
BackgroundMMDialog: A Large-scale Multi-turn Dialogue Dataset Towards Multi-modal Open-domain Conversation
Feng, J., Sun, Q., Xu, C., Zhao, P., Yang, Y., Tao, C., Zhao, D., & Lin, Q. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.405 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Reason first, then respond: Modular Generation for Knowledge-infused Dialogue
Adolphs, L., Shuster, K., Urbanek, J., Szlam, A., & Weston, J. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022 · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.527 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Am I Me or You? State-of-the-Art Dialogue Models Cannot Maintain an Identity
Shuster, K., Urbanek, J., Szlam, A., & Weston, J. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022 · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-naacl.182 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Spurious Correlations in Reference-Free Evaluation of Text Generation
Durmus, E., Ladhak, F., & Hashimoto, T. (2022) · Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.102 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
JudgeMoE: Distributional Aggregation for LLM-as-a-Judge
Liu, Y., James, J., Wang, Y., Zhao, K., Xiao, C., & Lin, C. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.07109
- Authors
- Gopalakrishnan, K., Hedayatnia, B., Chen, Q., Gottardi, A., Kwatra, S., Venkatesh, A., Gabriel, R., & Hakkani-Tür, D.
- Venue
- Interspeech 2019
- Publisher
- ISCA
- Published
- 2019-09-15
- Pages
- 1891-1895
- ISSN
- 2308-457X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2972664115
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 20
- FWCI
- 11.86
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Interspeech (USB) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- open-domain conversation, knowledge grounding, 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