The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Discourse obligations in dialogue processing
Open accessAbstract
We show that in modeling social interaction, particularly dialogue, the attitude of obligation can be a useful adjunct to the popularly considered attitudes of belief, goal, and intention and their mutual and shared counterparts. In particular, we show how discourse obligations can be used to account in a natural manner for the connection between a question and its answer in dialogue and how obligations can be used along with other parts of the discourse context to extend the coverage of a dialogue system.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Spoken dialogue technology: enabling the conversational user interface
McTear, M. F. (2002) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/505282.505285 · Cited by 571
McTear, M. F. (2004) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-85729-414-2 · Cited by 566
Information state and dialogue management in the TRINDI dialogue move engine toolkit
LARSSON, S., & TRAUM, D. R. (2000) · Natural Language Engineering · doi:10.1017/s1351324900002539 · Cited by 465
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Traum, D. R., & Allen, J. F.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics -
- Published
- 1994
- Pages
- 1-8
- OpenAlex
- W2159117246
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Discourse obligations in dialogue processing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3115/981732.981733
- The paper
- Traum, D. R., & Allen, J. F. (1994). Discourse obligations in dialogue processing. Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics -. https://doi.org/10.3115/981732.981733
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
