Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Exploring ReAct Prompting for Task-Oriented Dialogue: Insights and Shortcomings

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read ReAct-prompted LLMs lose on task success but win on user satisfaction in task-oriented dialogue, and the paper attributes the reversal to fluent, confident phrasing.

desk verdict Solid simulation study showing ReAct underperforms in TOD, but the human preference claim is too underpowered to support the abstract's main contrast. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01262 v2 pith:62HWB6PD submitted 2024-12-02 cs.CL cs.AIcs.HC

Michelle Elizabeth , Morgan Veyret , Miguel Couceiro , Ondrej Dusek , Lina M. Rojas-Barahona This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.HC
keywords task-orienteddialogueReActpromptinglargelanguagemodelsLLMagentsusersatisfactionhumanevaluationMultiWOZstatetracking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Task-oriented dialogue systems usually need hand-built pipelines or large training corpora; the paper asks whether ReAct prompting can make a general-purpose LLM do the whole job. It builds a ReAct-LLM agent on GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 with four database tools, and compares it with classical dialogue-management baselines on 1,000 simulated dialogues. In simulation the LLM agents complete far fewer user goals than the baselines. In a human study with 20 users and 95 dialogues per system the success gap narrows, and users rate the ReAct system more satisfying even though it succeeds less often. The paper concludes that fluent, confident phrasing can carry higher satisfaction than task success.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is ReAct prompting, a few-shot prompting loop in which the LLM alternates Thought (reasoning about what to do), Action (choosing a tool), and Observation (reading the tool's result) before producing a final answer. The agent is given four tools that expose the MultiWOZ database: list_domains, list_slots, db_query, and get_booking_reference. The intended role of this loop is to substitute for the classical pipeline steps of domain selection, slot detection, belief-state tracking, database query, and response generation, with a single worked example in the prompt as the only training signal.

What would settle it

A targeted refutation would be a larger, preregistered human study: with at least 50 users and 200 or more dialogues per system, compute a paired significance test on the satisfaction difference (65.47% vs 54.10%). If the difference is not statistically significant, or if it flips when users are told whether their goal was actually achieved, the paper's central human-evaluation conclusion would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that ReAct prompting alone—no fine-tuning, no bespoke dialogue state tracker—can make an LLM act as a task-oriented dialogue agent, but with a stark evaluation split. On the ConvLab-3 simulation benchmark the ReAct-LLM reaches only 28.2% success with GPT-3.5 and 43.6% with GPT-4, versus 83.8% for the BERT-NLU + HDC baseline; with semantic-level interaction the baselines reach over 97%. With real users, HDC completes 60.0% of goals versus 50.5% for ReAct-LLM, yet users give ReAct-LLM a 65.5% average satisfaction rating versus 54.1% for HDC. The authors attribute this to the LLM's self-confident, well-structured, polite and fluent sentences, and identify recurring failure modes: reasoning that imitates the prompt example, inconsistent or hallucinated slots, poor belief-state accumulation, and missing clarifying questions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the satisfaction scores of 20 in-house volunteers, collected over 95 dialogues per system without significance tests or confidence intervals, are representative enough to show that real users prefer ReAct-LLM over the HDC baseline despite its lower task success.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ReAct prompting by itself is not a drop-in replacement for classical TOD pipelines when the metric is task completion: simulated success rates are roughly 28–44% versus 84% for a BERT-NLU + HDC baseline.
  • Benchmarks built on simulated users can understate an LLM's perceived quality by real users; the paper's human data show satisfaction can be high even when task success is low.
  • The per-token cost of GPT-4 is about 36 times that of GPT-3.5 in this setup, and the gain in success rate is not enough to justify it in the authors' assessment.
  • LLM-based dialogue agents need additional control mechanisms to keep reasoning traces and belief states valid; the qualitative analysis shows hallucinations, invalid slots, and irrelevant actions as concrete failure modes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not test this, but a follow-up that matched phrasing style between systems could isolate whether fluency alone explains the satisfaction gap.
  • The results imply that user-satisfaction ratings should not be treated as a proxy for task success in dialogue evaluation; the trends point in opposite directions.
  • The LLM user simulator's role-switching failure suggests that LLM-as-user evaluation is fragile, so future agent benchmarks may need stricter user-simulation protocols.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a ReAct-based LLM system for task-oriented dialogue (TOD) using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, with explicit tool calls for domain selection, slot extraction, database queries, and booking reference generation, and evaluates it on MultiWOZ using the ConvLab-3 simulator. In 1000 simulated dialogues, ReAct-LLM reaches success rates of 28.2% (GPT-3.5) and 43.6% (GPT-4), far below the HDC (83.8%) and ACGOS (81.7%) baselines reported in Table 1. In a human evaluation with 95 dialogues per system from 20 in-house volunteers, HDC still achieves a higher success rate (60.0% vs 50.5%), but users report higher overall satisfaction with ReAct-LLM (65.5% vs 54.1% after converting 1-5 ratings to percentages). The paper also provides a qualitative error analysis of reasoning traces, hallucinated slots, and failures of an LLM-based user simulator, plus an API-cost analysis.

Significance. If the human-preference finding were rigorously established, the paper would make a noteworthy contribution: users may prefer fluent, confident LLM-generated responses even when task success is lower, and simulation-based comparisons may systematically undervalue LLM-based TOD systems. The simulated evaluation is reproducible (fixed seed, standard ConvLab-3 metrics, multiple external baselines) and the qualitative analysis of failure modes is informative. The cost analysis is also practically useful. However, the central positive claim about human satisfaction rests on a small, unblinded, in-house sample with no inferential statistics, so the paper's headline result is not yet supported at the level expected by a journal. The paper is a valuable empirical study in need of a more rigorous human evaluation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2, Table 3] The claim that 'users are more satisfied with ReAct-LLM than with HDC' is not statistically supported. The data come from 95 dialogues per system collected from 20 users, but the observations are not independent because each user contributed multiple dialogues, and no confidence intervals, significance tests, effect sizes, or inter-annotator agreement are reported. The satisfaction difference is 11.37 percentage points (54.10% vs 65.47%, i.e., about 0.57 on a 1-5 scale) and could plausibly be driven by a few outlier users or by practice/fatigue effects, especially since users could start a conversation as many times as they wished. The authors should provide a per-participant analysis (e.g., mean satisfaction per user and per system), a significance test that accounts for repeated measures (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank test or a mixed-effects model with a random intercept for participant), confidence intervals, and robustness checks excluding outliers. Without these, the abstract's main positive result is not established.
  2. [Section 5.2] The explanation that ReAct-LLM is preferred 'because ReAct-LLM is self-confident and generates well structured, polite, fluent and natural sentences' is a post-hoc attribution with no supporting rating data. No rating dimension beyond overall satisfaction was collected, so the paper cannot distinguish whether fluency, politeness, naturalness, confidence, or some other factor drives the preference. The authors should either collect per-dimension ratings (e.g., fluency, politeness, naturalness, confidence) or present this explanation as a hypothesis for future work rather than as a finding of the current study.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Section 6] The simulation comparison is potentially confounded by the user simulator's BERT-NLU errors when parsing ReAct-LLM's free-form responses. The paper acknowledges this in the conclusion ('difficulty in understanding the system requests by the user simulator, due to BERT-NLU errors') but does not quantify how many simulated failures are caused by NLU misparsing versus ReAct reasoning or response-generation errors. Since the abstract's first claim ('severely underperform ... on success rate in simulation') is based on Table 1, the authors should provide a breakdown of failure causes on a manually annotated sample of the 1000 simulated dialogues, or otherwise estimate the effect of NLU errors on the reported success rates.
  4. [Sections 4.2 and 5.2] The human evaluation protocol is under-specified, making the result difficult to interpret or reproduce. The paper does not report how many dialogues each user contributed, whether the same goals were used for both systems, whether the users were blind to the system identity, how repeated conversation attempts were handled in the success computation, what instructions were given for assigning the satisfaction rating, or how the 95 dialogues per system were distributed across the 20 users. These details should be provided in a revised version, as they bear directly on the validity of the satisfaction comparison.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 3] The header of Table 3 appears garbled: 'Avg Satisfaction Success Turn Rate (%) Rate (%)' should be relabeled as separate columns, e.g., 'Satisfaction Rate (%)', 'Success Rate (%)', and 'Avg Turns'.
  2. [Section 4.2] The paper states that a fixed random seed was used in the goal generator for reproducibility, but does not report the seed value; the seed should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Throughout] There are inconsistent spellings of 'ReAct' (e.g., 'React-LLMs' in Section 5.1) and 'ConvLab-3' (written as 'CONVLAB 3' in Section 4.2); please standardize these terms.
  4. [Figure 3] In the ReAct example, the input to db_query is shown as '{domai: hotel, state: ...}'; this appears to be a typo for '{domain: hotel, ...}'.
  5. [Appendix D] The sentence 'the performance of GPT-4 is superior to GPT-3' should refer to GPT-3.5, not GPT-3, to avoid confusion with the actual models used.
  6. [Figure 2] The prompt says 'when you do only specify the tool name as the Action' but the accompanying example includes an 'Input' field for each action; please clarify the intended format for tool arguments.
  7. [Section 4.2] The human evaluation section does not mention whether ethical approval or informed consent was obtained for the in-house volunteers; this information should be added if applicable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical comparison against external baselines on CONVLAB3; no fitted-input predictions or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central results are empirical measurements, not derivations. ReAct-LLM is evaluated on the standard CONVLAB3 benchmark (Zhu et al. 2022) against HDC, PPO, and ACGOS baselines; the success, book, inform, and complete rates are computed by the benchmark's own dialogue-state and goal-matching logic, not defined in terms of ReAct-LLM outputs. The human evaluation (Section 5.2) compares two deployed systems on 95 dialogues each; the satisfaction and success ratings are raw reported averages, not quantities fitted from, or defined by, the systems' inputs. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then 'predicted' on a closely related quantity. The baselines cited from co-authored work (Casanueva et al. 2018; Cordier et al. 2022; Wen et al. 2017) are established public systems with independently published configurations, and they are used as comparison points rather than as premises that force the paper's conclusions. The only self-referential observation, 'the reasoning traces may just be imitating the examples given in the prompt' (Section 5.3), concerns the LLM's behavior, not the paper's reasoning. The lack of significance testing or confidence intervals on the human ratings is a statistical robustness concern, not a circularity: the claim does not reduce by construction to its inputs. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical evaluation; no free parameters are fitted. Its conclusions rely on the validity of the simulation environment, the representativeness of human raters, and the specific ReAct prompt design, all of which are assumptions rather than derived results.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The CONVLAB3 agenda-based user simulator with BERT NLU is a valid proxy for real user behavior in task-oriented dialogue.
    Section 4.1 uses this simulator for the 1000-dialogue evaluation; if the simulator systematically mis-handles natural-language system responses, the simulated performance gap is an artifact. The paper itself notes BERT-NLU errors cause repeated utterances.
  • domain assumption The MultiWOZ goal generator and database are representative of realistic task-oriented dialogue tasks.
    Section 4.1: goals initialized 'in agreement with the MultiWOZ dataset'; results may not generalize beyond tourist information domains.
  • domain assumption In-house volunteer users provide unbiased, representative satisfaction judgments.
    Section 4.2: 'We opt for an in-house evaluation to ensure high quality'; no demographics or recruitment details; possible selection bias.
  • ad hoc to paper The hand-crafted ReAct prompt and tool descriptions are a reasonable instantiation of ReAct for TOD, not a degenerate implementation.
    Appendix A defines the prompt; the conclusions about ReAct-LLM performance depend on this design choice, and a different prompt could change results.
  • standard math Standard CONVLAB3 metrics (success, book, inform, complete) are accepted measures of task-oriented dialogue quality.
    Section 4.2 uses these metrics; they are standard in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring ReAct Prompting for Task-Oriented Dialogue: Insights and Shortcomings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/62HWB6PD

@misc{pith2026241201262,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring ReAct Prompting for Task-Oriented Dialogue: Insights and Shortcomings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/62HWB6PD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01262}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) gained immense popularity due to their impressive capabilities in unstructured conversations. Empowering LLMs with advanced prompting strategies such as reasoning and acting (ReAct) (Yao et al., 2022) has shown promise in solving complex tasks traditionally requiring reinforcement learning. In this work, we apply the ReAct strategy to guide LLMs performing task-oriented dialogue (TOD). We evaluate ReAct-based LLMs (ReAct-LLMs) both in simulation and with real users. While ReAct-LLMs severely underperform state-of-the-art approaches on success rate in simulation, this difference becomes less pronounced in human evaluation. Moreover, compared to the baseline, humans report higher subjective satisfaction with ReAct-LLM despite its lower success rate, most likely thanks to its natural and confidently phrased responses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01262 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The proposed ReAct-LLM system agent uses few-shot examples in the prompt to guide the LLM in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The ReAct prompt used to instruct the system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. An excerpt of a conversation where the LLM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The example provided in the ReAct prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An excerpt showing the system hallucinating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An excerpt showing the wrong slot being filled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Excerpts showing the LLM prompted to play [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Excerpts of a conversation showing how GPT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Step 1 of human evaluation: Chatting with the system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Step 2 of human evaluation: Evaluating the conversation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. PyTOD: Programmable Task-Oriented Dialogue with Execution Feedback

    cs.CL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A solvable one-state model of a dynamic molecular switch is claimed to combine synapse-like switching with proven convergence and fading memory for stable neuromorphic computation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Pawe Budzianowski, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, I \ n igo Casanueva, Stefan Ultes, Osman Ramadan, and Milica Ga s i \'c . 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1547 M ulti WOZ - a large-scale multi-domain W izard-of- O z dataset for task-oriented dialogue modelling . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Proce...

    doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1547 2018

  4. [4]

    Iñigo Casanueva, Paweł Budzianowski, Pei-Hao Su, Nikola Mrkšić, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Stefan Ultes, Lina Rojas-Barahona, Steve Young, and Milica Gašić. 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.11023 A benchmarking environment for reinforcement learning based task oriented dialogue management . Preprint, arXiv:1711.11023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Lu Chen, Bowen Tan, Sishan Long, and Kai Yu. 2018. Structured dialogue policy with graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1257--1268

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Rojas-Barahona

    Thibault Cordier, Tanguy Urvoy, Fabrice Lefèvre, and Lina M. Rojas-Barahona. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.05252 Graph neural network policies and imitation learning for multi-domain task-oriented dialogues . Preprint, arXiv:2210.05252

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Diluted Near-Optimal Expert Demonstrations for Guiding Dialogue Stochastic Policy Optimisation

    Thibault Cordier, Tanguy Urvoy, Lina M. Rojas-Barahona, and Fabrice Lefèvre. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.04687 Diluted near-optimal expert demonstrations for guiding dialogue stochastic policy optimisation . Preprint, arXiv:2012.04687

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Vojt e ch Hude c ek and Ondrej Dusek. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.sigdial-1.21 Are large language models all you need for task-oriented dialogue? In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 216--228, Prague, Czechia. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.sigdial-1.21 2023

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Zhaojiang Lin, Andrea Madotto, Genta Indra Winata, and Pascale Fung. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.273 MinTL : Minimalist Transfer Learning for Task - Oriented Dialogue Systems . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language...

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    OpenAI . 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774 GPT -4 Technical Report . Technical Report , OpenAI

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and...

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Jinchao Li, Shahin Shayandeh, Lars Liden, and Jianfeng Gao. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00399 Soloist: Building Task Bots at Scale with Transfer Learning and Machine Teaching . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:807--824

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Abhinav Rastogi, Xiaoxue Zang, Srinivas Sunkara, Raghav Gupta, and Pranav Khaitan. 2020. Towards scalable multi-domain conversational agents: The schema-guided dialogue dataset. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 8689--8696

    2020

  6. [14]

    Jost Schatzmann, Blaise Thomson, Karl Weilhammer, Hui Ye, and Steve Young. 2007. https://aclanthology.org/N07-2038 Agenda-based user simulation for bootstrapping a POMDP dialogue system . In Human Language Technologies 2007: The Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the...

    2007

  7. [15]

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms . arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Armand Stricker and Patrick Paroubek. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.sigdial-1.50 A Few -shot Approach to Task -oriented Dialogue Enhanced with Chitchat . In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue , pages 590--602...

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Ryuichi Takanobu, Qi Zhu, Jinchao Li, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, and Minlie Huang. 2020. https://aclanthology.org/2020.sigdial-1.37/ Is Your Goal - Oriented Dialog Model Performing Really Well ? Empirical Analysis of System -wise Evaluation . In SIGdial , pages 297--310, Online

    2020

  10. [18]

    Stefan Ultes, Lina M Rojas Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, David Vandyke, Dongho Kim, I \ n igo Casanueva, Pawe Budzianowski, Nikola Mrk s i \'c , Tsung-Hsien Wen, and Milica Gasic. 2017. Pydial: A multi-domain statistical dialogue system toolkit. In Proceedings of ACL 2017, System Demo...

    2017

  11. [19]

    Gell \'e rt Weisz, Pawe Budzianowski, Pei-Hao Su, and Milica Ga s i \'c . 2018 a . Sample efficient deep reinforcement learning for dialogue systems with large action spaces. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 26(11):2083--2097

    2018

  12. [20]

    Gellert Weisz, Pawel Budzianowski, Pei-Hao Su, and Milica Gasic. 2018 b . https://doi.org/10.1109/TASLP.2018.2851664 Sample efficient deep reinforcement learning for dialogue systems with large action spaces . IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech and Lang. Proc., 26(11):2083–2097

    2018

  13. [21]

    Rojas-Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, Stefan Ultes, and Steve Young

    Tsung-Hsien Wen, David Vandyke, Nikola Mrk s i \'c , Milica Ga s i \'c , Lina M. Rojas-Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, Stefan Ultes, and Steve Young. 2017. https://aclanthology.org/E17-1042 A network-based end-to-end trainable task-oriented dialogue system . In Proceedings of the 15th C...

    2017

  14. [22]

    Heng-Da Xu, Xian-Ling Mao, Puhai Yang, Fanshu Sun, and Heyan Huang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.152 Rethinking task-oriented dialogue systems: From complex modularity to zero-shot autonomous agent . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Associati...

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2022. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Xiaoying Zhang, Baolin Peng, Kun Li, Jingyan Zhou, and Helen Meng. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.891 SGP - TOD : Building Task Bots Effortlessly via Schema - Guided LLM Prompting . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics : EMNLP 202...

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Qi Zhu, Christian Geishauser, Hsien chin Lin, Carel van Niekerk, Baolin Peng, Zheng Zhang, Michael Heck, Nurul Lubis, Dazhen Wan, Xiaochen Zhu, Jianfeng Gao, Milica Gašić, and Minlie Huang. 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.17148 Convlab-3: A flexible dialogue system toolkit bas...

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Qi Zhu, Zheng Zhang, Yan Fang, Xiang Li, Ryuichi Takanobu, Jinchao Li, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Minlie Huang. 2020. Convlab-2: An open-source toolkit for building, evaluating, and diagnosing dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the ...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.