Cited by 207Speech and dialogue systemsTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

Topical-Chat: Towards Knowledge-Grounded Open-Domain Conversations

Gopalakrishnan, Karthik, Hedayatnia, Behnam, Chen, Qinlang, Gottardi, Anna, Kwatra, Sanjeev, Venkatesh, Anu, Gabriel, Raefer, Hakkani-Tür, Dilek·2019·Interspeech 2019

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.21437/interspeech.2019-3079

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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