Cited by 102Speech and dialogue systemsNatural Language Processing TechniquesMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation

A General, Abstract Model of Incremental Dialogue Processing

Open access
Schlangen, David, Skantze, Gabriel·2011·Dialogue & Discourse

Abstract

We present a general model and conceptual framework for specifying architectures for incremental processing in dialogue systems, in particular with respect to the topology of the network of modules that make up the system, the way information flows through this network, how information increments are ‘packaged’, and how these increments are processed by the modules. This model enables the precise specification of incremental systems and hence facilitates detailed comparisons between systems, as well as giving guidance on designing new systems. In particular, the model can serve as a framework for specifying module communication in such systems, as we illustrate with some examples.

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 · 10.5087/dad.2011.105

Cites

24 of 24 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

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: 13

  1. Adam Cheyer and David Martin. The open agent architecture. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 4(1):143-148, March 2001. OAA.
  2. Thomas Dean and Mark Boddy. An analysis of time-dependent planning. In Proceedings of AAAI- 88, pages 49-54. AAAI, 1988.
  3. David DeVault and Matthew Stone. Domain inference in incremental interpretation. In Proceedings of ICOS 4: Workshop on Inference in Computational Semantics, Nancy, France, September 2003.
  4. David DeVault, Kenji Sagae, and David Traum. Can I finish? learning when to respond to incre- mental interpretation results in interactive dialogue. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGDIAL Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL'09), London, UK, September 2009.
  5. Jonathan Ginzburg, Raquel Fernández, and David Schlangen. Unifying self-and other-repair. In Proceeding of DECALOG, the 11th International Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial07), Trento, Italy, June 2007.
  6. Willem J.M. Levelt. Speaking. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, 1989.
  7. Joakim Nivre. Incrementality in deterministic dependency parsing. pages 50-57, Barcelona, Spain, July 2004.
  8. David Schlangen. What we can learn from dialogue systems that don't work: On dialogue systems as cognitive models. In Proceedings of DiaHolmia, the 13th International Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SEMDIAL 2009), pages 51-58, Stockholm, Sweden, June 2009.
  9. David Schlangen, Timo Baumann, and Michaela Atterer. Incremental reference resolution: The task, metrics for evaluation, and a bayesian filtering model that is sensitive to disfluencies. In Proceedings of SIGdial 2009, the 10th Annual SIGDIAL Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, London, UK, September 2009.
  10. Scott C. Stoness, James Allen, Greg Aist, and Mary Swift. Using real-world reference to improve spoken language understanding. In Proceedings of Workshop on Spoken Language Understand- ing at AAAI05, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2005.
  11. D. Traum and P. Heeman. Utterance units in spoken dialogue. In E. Maier, M. Mast, and S. Lu- perFoy, editors, Dialogue Processing in Spoken Language Systems, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 1997.
  12. Mats Wirén. Studies in Incremental Natural Language Analysis. PhD thesis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 1992.
  13. S.J. Young, N.H. Russell, and J.H.S. Thornton. Token passing: a conceptual model for connected speech recognition systems. Technical report CUED/FINFENG/TR 38, Cambridge University Engineering Department, 1989.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schlangen, D., & Skantze, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Potsdam (DE)
  • KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
Venue
Dialogue & Discourse
Published
2011-05-03
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
83-111
ISSN
2152-9620 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2026431544
Cited by
102
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Dialogue & Discourse (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld (Universität Bielefeld) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Dialogue & Discourse (cc-by)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Keywords
dialogue systems, system architecture, module networks, information flow, architecture specification, dialogue system design

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