CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 168Speech and dialogue systemsAI in Service InteractionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 212 of the 213 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Conversational Agents: Goals, Technologies, Vision and Challenges

Open access
Allouch, Merav, Azaria, Amos, Azoulay, Rina·2021·Sensors
DOI 10.3390/s21248448PMC PMC8704682
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In recent years, conversational agents (CAs) have become ubiquitous and are a presence in our daily routines. It seems that the technology has finally ripened to advance the use of CAs in various domains, including commercial, healthcare, educational, political, industrial, and personal domains. In this study, the main areas in which CAs are successful are described along with the main technologies that enable the creation of CAs. Capable of conducting ongoing communication with humans, CAs are encountered in natural-language processing, deep learning, and technologies that integrate emotional aspects. The technologies used for the evaluation of CAs and publicly available datasets are outlined. In addition, several areas for future research are identified to address moral and security issues, given the current state of CA-related technological developments. The uniqueness of our review is that an overview of the concepts and building blocks of CAs is provided, and CAs are categorized according to their abilities and main application domains. In addition, the primary tools and datasets that may be useful for the development and evaluation of CAs of different categories are described. Finally, some thoughts and directions for future research are provided, and domains that may benefit from conversational agents are introduced.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/s21248448

Cites

212 of 212 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 213 references

1 of the 213 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Adiwardana, D., Luong, M.T., So, D.R., Hall, J., Fiedel, N., Thoppilan, R., Yang, Z., Kulshreshtha, A., Nemade, G., and Lu, Y. (2020). Towards a human-like open-domain chatbot. arXiv.
  2. Nimavat, 2017, Chatbots: An overview types, architecture, tools and future possibilities, Int. J. Sci. Res. Dev., 5, 1019
  3. Gehl, 2014, Teaching to the Turing Test with Cleverbot, J. Incl. Scholarsh. Pedagog., 24, 56
  4. Noroozi, V., Zhang, Y., Bakhturina, E., and Kornuta, T. (2020). A Fast and Robust BERT-based Dialogue State Tracker for Schema-Guided Dialogue Dataset. arXiv.
  5. Wallace, R.S. (2009). The anatomy of ALICE. Parsing the Turing Test, Springer Nature.
  6. Bocklisch, T., Faulkner, J., Pawlowski, N., and Nichol, A. (2017). Rasa: Open source language understanding and dialogue management. arXiv.
  7. Devlin, J., Chang, M.W., Lee, K., and Toutanova, K. (2018). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv.
  8. Serban, I.V., Sankar, C., Germain, M., Zhang, S., Lin, Z., Subramanian, S., Kim, T., Pieper, M., Chandar, S., and Ke, N.R. (2017). A deep reinforcement learning chatbot. arXiv.
  9. Kim, J., Ham, D., Lee, J.G., and Kim, K.E. (2021, January 8–9). End-to-End Document-Grounded Conversation with Encoder-Decoder Pre-Trained Language Model. Proceedings of the DSTC9 Workshop, Online.
  10. Sarder, M.A. (2018). ECActive Embodied Conversational Agent for Mental Health Intervention. [Master’s Thesis, Delft University of Technology].
  11. Burgoon, J., Guerrero, L., and Manusov, V. (2011). Nonverbal signals. The SAGE Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, SAGE Publications.
  12. Liu, H., Lin, T., Sun, H., Lin, W., Chang, C.W., Zhong, T., and Rudnicky, A. (2017). Rubystar: A non-task-oriented mixture model dialog system. arXiv.
  13. Hobert, S. (2019, January 15–18). Say hello to ‘coding tutor’! design and evaluation of a chatbot-based learning system supporting students to learn to program. Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2019, Munich, Germany.
  14. Peca, A., Tapus, A., Aly, A., Pop, C., Jisa, L., Pintea, S., Rusu, A., and David, D. (2020). Exploratory study: Children’s with autism awareness of being imitated by NAO Robot. arXiv.
  15. Ross, 2018, IBM’s Watson supercomputer recommended ‘unsafe and incorrect’ cancer treatments, internal documents show, Stat, 25, 1
  16. Pradana, 2017, Sambot-intelligent conversational bot for interactive marketing with consumer-centric approach, Int. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. Ind. Manag. Appl., 6, 265
  17. Adams, T. (2017). AI-Powered Social Bots. arXiv.
  18. Papineni, K.A., Roukos, S., Ward, T., and Zhu, W. (2002, January 6–12). Understanding Affective Experiences with BLEU: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. Proceedings of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Philadelphia, PA, USA. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Guo, F., Metallinou, A., Khatri, C., Raju, A., Venkatesh, A., and Ram, A. (2018). Topic-based evaluation for conversational bots. arXiv.
  20. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., and Lee, L. (2011). Chameleons in imagined conversations: A new approach to understanding coordination of linguistic style in dialogs. arXiv.
  21. Lowe, R., Pow, N., Serban, I., and Pineau, J. (2017). The Ubuntu Dialogue Corpus: A Large Dataset for Research in Unstructured Multi-Turn Dialogue Systems. arXiv.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–167 of 167

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Allouch, M., Azaria, A., & Azoulay, R.
Affiliations
  • Ariel University (IL)
  • Jerusalem College of Technology (IL)
Corresponding author
Azoulay, Rina
ORCID
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-12-17
Volume
21
Issue
24
Pages
8448
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/s21248448
PMC
PMC8704682
OpenAlex
W4200588694
Cited by
168
References
213
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 12
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
chatbots, natural language processing, deep learning, affective computing, ethical considerations, security challenges
MeSH terms
Communication, Goals, Humans, Natural Language Processing, Technology, Vision, Ocular

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