CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1,400Speech and dialogue systemsTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

A Neural Conversational Model

Open access
Vinyals, Oriol, Le, Quoc·2015·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1506.05869arXiv 1506.05869
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Conversational modeling is an important task in natural language understanding and machine intelligence. Although previous approaches exist, they are often restricted to specific domains (e.g., booking an airline ticket) and require hand-crafted rules. In this paper, we present a simple approach for this task which uses the recently proposed sequence to sequence framework. Our model converses by predicting the next sentence given the previous sentence or sentences in a conversation. The strength of our model is that it can be trained end-to-end and thus requires much fewer hand-crafted rules. We find that this straightforward model can generate simple conversations given a large conversational training dataset. Our preliminary results suggest that, despite optimizing the wrong objective function, the model is able to converse well. It is able extract knowledge from both a domain specific dataset, and from a large, noisy, and general domain dataset of movie subtitles. On a domain-specific IT helpdesk dataset, the model can find a solution to a technical problem via conversations. On a noisy open-domain movie transcript dataset, the model can perform simple forms of common sense reasoning. As expected, we also find that the lack of consistency is a common failure mode of our model.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1506.05869

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • Deep learning based NLG generation is prone to hallucinate unintended text, which degrades system performance and fails to meet user expectations in many real-world scenarios.

    “However, it is also apparent that deep learning based generation is prone to hallucinate unintended text, which degrades the system performance and fails to meet user expectations in many real-world scenarios.”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [263]

    The model samples (p. 6) describe short, sometimes unsatisfying answers and inconsistent responses to similar questions; the Discussion (p. 7) says the model may need substantial changes to deliver realistic conversations. These passages support a narrower claim about this conversational model’s limitations, not the broader claim that deep-learning-based NLG is prone to hallucinating unintended text or that this degrades performance and user expectations across many real-world scenarios. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • There is another contributor of hallucinations: training and modeling choices of neural models.

    “This is because there is another contributor of hallucinations - training and modeling choices of neural models [121, 215, 222, 263].”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [263]

    In the model-samples discussion (p. 6), the authors attribute inconsistent answers about the model’s job to the simplicity of their model and the dataset. That supports a link between modeling or training choices and unreliable outputs, but the paper does not identify those outputs as hallucinations or establish the broader claim about neural models generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In end-to-end generative open-domain dialogue systems, inconsistency among system utterances has been pointed out as the bottleneck to human-level performance.

    “In end-to-end generative open-domain dialogue systems, the inconsistency among system utterances has been pointed out as the bottleneck to human-level performance [263].”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [263]

    The Abstract (p. 1) calls lack of consistency a common failure mode of the authors’ model, and the Discussion (p. 7) says a lack of coherent personality makes it difficult for their system to pass the Turing test. These passages support the concern about inconsistent utterances, but they do not identify it as the singular bottleneck to human-level performance across end-to-end open-domain dialogue systems. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Bahdanau, D., Cho, K., and Bengio, Y. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473 , 2014. · arXiv
  2. Bengio, Y., Ducharme, R., Vincent, P., and Janvin, C. A neural probabilistic language model. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 3:1137-1155, 2003.
  3. Jean, S., Cho, K., Memisevic, R., and Bengio, Y. On using very large target vocabulary for neural machine translation. CoRR , abs/1412.2007, 2014. · arXiv
  4. Jurafsky, D. and Martin, J. Speech and language processing . Pearson International, 2009.
  5. Kalchbrenner, N. and Blunsom, P. Recurrent continuous translation models. In EMNLP , 2013.
  6. Luong, T., Sutskever, I., Le, Q. V., Vinyals, O., and Zaremba, W. Addressing the rare word problem in neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.8206 , 2014. · arXiv
  7. Mikolov, T. Statistical Language Models based on Neural Networks . PhD thesis, Brno University of Technology, 2012.
  8. Shang, L., Lu, Z., and Li, H. Neural responding machine for short-text conversation. In Proceedings of ACL , 2015.
  9. Sordoni, A., Galley, M., Auli, M., Brockett, C., Ji, Y., Mitchell, M., Gao, J., Dolan, B., and Nie, J.-Y . A neural network approach to context-sensitive generation of conversational responses. In Proceedings of NAACL , 2015.
  10. Sutskever, I., Vinyals, O., and Le, Q. V. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In NIPS , 2014.
  11. Tiedemann, J. News from OPUS - A collection of multilingual parallel corpora with tools and interfaces. In Nicolov, N., Bontcheva, K., Angelova, G., and Mitkov, R. (eds.), Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing , volume V, pp. 237-248. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Borovets, Bulgaria, 2009. ISBN 978 90 272 4825 1.
  12. Turing, A. M. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind , pp. 433-460, 1950.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vinyals, O., & Le, Q.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2015
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1506.05869
arXiv
1506.05869
OpenAlex
W1591706642
Cited by
1,400
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 181 · 2020: 273 · 2019: 283 · 2018: 222 · 2017: 139 · 2016: 85 · 2015: 17
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
sequence-to-sequence models, next sentence prediction, end-to-end learning, film subtitles, commonsense reasoning, knowledge extraction, failure modes

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