2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.csl.2009.04.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Hidden Information State model: A practical framework for POMDP-based spoken dialogue management

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
240
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 379 publications
(257 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
1
240
0
Order By: Relevance
“…More traditional dialog systems typically tease apart dialog management (Young, 2002) from response generation (Stent and Bangalore, 2014), while our holistic approach can be considered a first attempt to accomplish both tasks jointly. While there are previous uses of machine learning for response generation (Walker et al, 2003), dialog state tracking (Young et al, 2010), and user modeling (Georgila et al, 2006), many components of typical dialog systems remain hand-coded: in particular, the labels and attributes defining dialog states. In contrast, the dialog state in our neural network model is completely latent and directly optimized towards end-to-end performance.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More traditional dialog systems typically tease apart dialog management (Young, 2002) from response generation (Stent and Bangalore, 2014), while our holistic approach can be considered a first attempt to accomplish both tasks jointly. While there are previous uses of machine learning for response generation (Walker et al, 2003), dialog state tracking (Young et al, 2010), and user modeling (Georgila et al, 2006), many components of typical dialog systems remain hand-coded: in particular, the labels and attributes defining dialog states. In contrast, the dialog state in our neural network model is completely latent and directly optimized towards end-to-end performance.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, statistical approaches compute a posterior distribution over many hypotheses for the dialog state, and in general these have been shown to be superior (Horvitz and Paek, 1999;Williams and Young, 2007;Young et al, 2009;Thomson and Young, 2010;Bohus and Rudnicky, 2006;Metallinou et al, 2013;.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most early work cast dialog state tracking as a generative model in which hidden user goals generate observations in the form of SLU hypotheses (Horvitz and Paek, 1999;Williams and Young, 2007;Young et al, 2009;Thomson and Young, 2010). More recently, discriminatively trained direct models have been applied, and two studies on dialog data from two publicly deployed dialog systems suggest direct models yield better performance (Williams, 2012;Zilka et al, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In MDP-based systems, only the most likely dialog state is considered and in this case the primary metric is dialog state accuracy (Bohus and Rudnicky, 2006). In POMDP-based systems, the full distribution is considered and then the shape of the distribution as measured by an L2 norm is equally important (Young et al, 2009). In both cases, good quality state tracking is essential to maintaining good overall system performance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%