Pith. sign in

REVIEW

User-Initiated Repetition-Based Recovery in Multi-Utterance Dialogue Systems

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2108.01208 v1 pith:5DNAW4G7 submitted 2021-08-02 cs.CL cs.SDeess.AS

User-Initiated Repetition-Based Recovery in Multi-Utterance Dialogue Systems

classification cs.CL cs.SDeess.AS
keywords querycommunicationerrorsmodeloriginalrecoveryvirtualallows
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Recognition errors are common in human communication. Similar errors often lead to unwanted behaviour in dialogue systems or virtual assistants. In human communication, we can recover from them by repeating misrecognized words or phrases; however in human-machine communication this recovery mechanism is not available. In this paper, we attempt to bridge this gap and present a system that allows a user to correct speech recognition errors in a virtual assistant by repeating misunderstood words. When a user repeats part of the phrase the system rewrites the original query to incorporate the correction. This rewrite allows the virtual assistant to understand the original query successfully. We present an end-to-end 2-step attention pointer network that can generate the the rewritten query by merging together the incorrectly understood utterance with the correction follow-up. We evaluate the model on data collected for this task and compare the proposed model to a rule-based baseline and a standard pointer network. We show that rewriting the original query is an effective way to handle repetition-based recovery and that the proposed model outperforms the rule based baseline, reducing Word Error Rate by 19% relative at 2% False Alarm Rate on annotated data.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.