Đang chuẩn bị liên kết để tải về tài liệu:
Báo cáo khoa học: "Implications for Generating Clarification Requests in Task-oriented Dialogues"

Clarification requests (CRs) in conversation ensure and maintain mutual understanding and thus play a crucial role in robust dialogue interaction. In this paper, we describe a corpus study of CRs in task-oriented dialogue and compare our findings to those reported in two prior studies. We find that CR behavior in task-oriented dialogue differs significantly from that in everyday conversation in a number of ways. Moreover, the dialogue type, the modality and the channel quality all influence the decision of when to clarify and at which level of the grounding process. . | Implications for Generating Clarification Requests in Task-oriented Dialogues Verena Rieser Department of Computational Linguistics Saarland University Saarbrucken D-66041 vrieser@coli.uni-sb.de Johanna D. Moore School of Informatics University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH8 9LW Gb J.Moore@ed.ac.uk Abstract Clarification requests CRs in conversation ensure and maintain mutual understanding and thus play a crucial role in robust dialogue interaction. In this paper we describe a corpus study of CRs in task-oriented dialogue and compare our findings to those reported in two prior studies. We find that CR behavior in task-oriented dialogue differs significantly from that in everyday conversation in a number of ways. Moreover the dialogue type the modality and the channel quality all influence the decision of when to clarify and at which level of the grounding process. Finally we identify formfunction correlations which can inform the generation of CRs. 1 Introduction Clarification requests in conversation ensure and maintain mutual understanding and thus play a significant role in robust and efficient dialogue interaction. From a theoretical perspective the model of grounding explains how mutual understanding is established. According to Clark 1996 speakers and listeners ground mutual understanding on four levels of coordination in an action ladder as shown in Table 1. Several current research dialogue systems can detect errors on different levels of grounding Paek and Horvitz 2000 Larsson 2002 Purver 2004 Level Speaker S Listener L Convers. Intention Signal Channel S is proposing activity a S is signalling thatp S is presenting signal Ơ S is executing behavior 3 L is considering proposal a L is recognizing that p L is identifying signal Ơ L is attending to behavior 3 Table 1 Four levels of grounding Schlangen 2004 . However only the work of Purver 2004 addresses the question of how the source of the error affects the form the CR takes. In this paper we investigate the use