Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Enhancing Goal-oriented Proactive Dialogue Systems via Consistency Reflection and Correction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a model-agnostic two-stage Consistency Reflection and Correction framework improves how goal-directed dialogue systems keep responses consistent with user profiles, dialogue history, domain knowledge, and subgoals…

desk verdict A useful empirical recipe for consistency reflection in goal-oriented dialogue, but the 'significant' claim outruns the statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13366 v3 pith:5OLVJSPZ submitted 2025-06-16 cs.CL

Didi Zhang , Yaxin Fan , Peifeng Li , Qiaoming Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords goal-orientedproactivedialogueconsistencyreflectionandcorrectionresponsegenerationgoalsuccessrateknowledgeF1ChatGPTannotationconversationalrecommendation
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

Goal-oriented proactive dialogue systems must steer a conversation toward an objective, but their generated responses often contradict the user profile, the dialogue history, the domain knowledge, or the current subgoal. This paper claims that a model-agnostic two-stage training recipe—first reflecting on what is inconsistent and how to fix it, then regenerating the response in light of that reflection—substantially reduces such contradictions. Across seven model architectures, from a 99M-parameter DialoGPT to an 8B LLaMA3, and across three datasets, the authors report consistent gains in word-level F1, BLEU-2, knowledge F1, and goal success rate, with little change in response diversity. If the claim holds, it gives dialogue-system builders a plug-in fine-tuning method that improves goal achievement and factual correctness without redesigning the path planner or the model architecture.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the annotation tuple $c = (r, e, s)$: the original response $r$, a labeled inconsistency type $e$ drawn from the four dialogue-context elements, and a correction suggestion $s$. The framework turns consistency from an implicit quality into a supervised output: it fine-tunes the generator first to produce $r$ together with the reflection $(e, s)$, and then to produce a corrected response $r'$ conditioned on that reflection, so the model learns to detect and repair its own inconsistencies.

What would settle it

Re-run the CRC training on a sample where the reflection and correction labels are produced by independent human annotators instead of GPT-4o; if the reported Word F1, Knowledge F1, and Goal Success Rate gains disappear or shrink to noise on the same held-out sets, the central claim depends on the proprietary annotator rather than on the reflection mechanism itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that consistency in goal-directed response generation can be trained explicitly as a two-step repair loop. Using ChatGPT (GPT-4o) annotations of inconsistency type and correction suggestion, the CRC framework first teaches a response generator to output, alongside its response $r$, an inconsistency type $e$ chosen from user profile, dialogue history, domain knowledge, or subgoal, plus a correction suggestion $s$. It then teaches the same model to produce a corrected response $r'$ conditioned on $(r, e, s)$. At inference the two stages run in sequence, so the model examines its own draft before committing to a final answer. The paper reports improvements in Word-level F1, BLEU-2, Knowledge F1, and Goal Success Rate across encoder-decoder and decoder-only models of different sizes on DuRecDial, DuRecDial 2.0, and TopDial; ablations that remove any one consistency element lower performance on the metric most tied to that element, and a 500-pair human evaluation shows the CRC outputs winning more often on all four consistency dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the GPT-4o-generated labels for inconsistency type and correction suggestion are accurate and complete enough that models trained on them learn genuine consistency; the released code does not include these annotations, so this training signal cannot be independently reproduced from the paper alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any existing goal-oriented dialogue generator could be upgraded by fine-tuning alone, without changing the path planner or the model architecture; the reported gains span BART and T5 as well as GPT-2, DialoGPT, Phi3, Mistral, and LLaMA3.
  • The framework makes inconsistency visible and typed, so practitioners can inspect the predicted inconsistency type $e$ to see whether failures are mostly profile-, history-, knowledge-, or subgoal-driven and target data collection accordingly.
  • Because consistency with the subgoal is part of the training objective, the framework directly targets Goal Success Rate; the paper reports reduced per-turn subgoal failure rates and higher success rates on all three datasets.
  • The large Knowledge F1 gains suggest that reflection teaches models to consult domain knowledge rather than hallucinate, which would matter for recommender and medical-consultation dialogue systems built on this family of models.
  • The framework applies to billion-parameter LLMs and to settings where the goal-oriented path is already gold-standard, so it is complementary to path planning: even with near-perfect planning, the correction stage still adds measurable gains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mechanism may be simpler than 'reflection': the gains could come from adding a second supervised pass that sees a repaired response. A control that replaces the GPT-4o suggestion with a generic 'make it consistent' instruction would separate the content of the reflection from the extra training signal.
  • Because the reflection annotations come from GPT-4o, the framework's ceiling is tied to the annotator's knowledge and style. Using an open-weight model or human labels for the same annotation prompt would test reproducibility and could change the size of the reported gains.
  • The same reflect-then-correct recipe could transfer to other conditional generation tasks where outputs must respect structured context, such as fact-grounded question answering or personalized summarization; if the mechanism is general, Knowledge-F1-style factual metrics should rise there too.
  • The predicted inconsistency-type distribution could be used diagnostically across corpora: if, for example, subgoal inconsistencies dominate on one dataset, that corpus likely needs better path-context alignment rather than more model capacity.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a model-agnostic two-stage Consistency Reflection and Correction (CRC) framework for goal-oriented proactive dialogue systems. In the consistency reflection stage, a response generator is fine-tuned, using ChatGPT-annotated data, to output the response together with an inconsistency type and a correction suggestion; in the consistency correction stage, the generator is fine-tuned to produce a revised response conditioned on the reflection output. Experiments on DuRecDial, DuRecDial 2.0, and TopDial with BART, T5, GPT-2, DialoGPT, Phi-3, Mistral, and LLaMA-3 report improvements in word-level F1, BLEU-2, knowledge F1, and goal success rate, supported by ablations, pairwise human evaluation, and case studies. The central claim is that CRC significantly improves consistency between generated responses and dialogue contexts.

Significance. If the reported gains hold, the paper would provide a simple, model-agnostic recipe for improving consistency in goal-oriented proactive dialogue systems, with unusually broad coverage across architectures and parameter scales. Strengths include the breadth of the experimental matrix, the golden-path condition (Golden-LLaMA3) that helps separate path-planning effects from response-generation effects, ablations over the four context elements, and a public code release. The framework does not exhibit equation-level circularity: the reflection and correction stages are trained on externally generated ChatGPT annotations rather than on the evaluation metrics themselves. However, the statistical support for the headline claim is currently insufficient, and the dependence on unreleased proprietary annotations limits reproducibility.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Abstract; Tables 1, 2, 12] The abstract and Section 5.2 repeatedly use the word 'significantly' to describe the improvements, but every configuration appears to be a single run and no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. This is load-bearing because several headline deltas are very small: in Table 2, TP-GPT2 BLEU-2 rises from 0.217 to 0.219 and TP-Dial from 0.214 to 0.215; TP-LLaMA3 BLEU-2 rises by only 0.003. For fine-tuned dialogue generators, such differences are commonly within seed-to-seed variation. The authors should either report multiple seeds with paired significance tests, or temper the 'significantly improves' language to 'reported improvements' until such evidence is available.
  2. [§4 and §6.4] The reflection training data are produced by ChatGPT (GPT-4o-2024-05-13) and the paper does not state that these annotations are released. Section 6.4 reports that ChatGPT correctly identified 94% (245/261) of inconsistencies and produced accurate suggestions in 97% (237/245) of cases, but the text does not identify the gold standard against which 'correct' is judged. If the same ChatGPT-based scheme or the same four-dimension rubric is used as the reference, this is not an independent validation of the training signal. Given that the framework's central mechanism is trained on these annotations, the authors should release the annotations or provide an independent human-validated evaluation of a sample.
  3. [§6.2 and Appendix F] The pairwise human evaluation uses 500 response pairs and three annotators but reports only averaged win/tie/lose percentages, with no inter-annotator agreement, no statistical test, and no error bars. As the only direct evidence for improved consistency, this evaluation cannot by itself support the claim of a significant improvement. Reporting Cohen's kappa or a paired test (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank on per-item judgments) and releasing the evaluation data would make this evidence usable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix C] There are typos in the first paragraph: 'THe DuRecDial' should be 'The DuRecDial', and 'data tatistics' should be 'data statistics'.
  2. [§4, after Eq. (7)] The sentence 'Similar with Equ 5' should read 'Similar to Equation (5)'.
  3. [Limitation] The Limitation section refers to 'GPT-4', while Section 4 and Appendix B specify 'GPT-4o-2024-05-13'. Please use a consistent model name.
  4. [Table 3] The ablation study is reported for only one model (TP-LLaMA3) and one dataset (DuRecDial); the text should state this scope explicitly and avoid implying that each ablated element is verified across all experimental settings.
  5. [§5.2, Table 1] The text says CRC has 'minimal impact' on Distinct, but in Table 1 the Dist-2 of TP-Dial changes from 0.041 to 0.062, which is a roughly 50% relative increase. Please clarify the threshold used for 'minimal' or rephrase the claim.
  6. [Appendix E] The first paragraph says the TopDial results show 'significant improvements'; as with Tables 1 and 2, this wording is not supported by significance testing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework is trained on ChatGPT-generated reflection annotations but its central results are measured against external references, not against those annotations.

full rationale

The CRC pipeline is derived from three explicit optimization stages: the base response generator is trained with MLE (Eq. 3), the reflection model is trained on concatenations of response, inconsistency type, and correction suggestion (Eq. 5), and the correction model is trained to produce a corrected response conditioned on the reflection output (Eq. 7). None of these equations defines its predicted quantity as the training target: the corrected response is a new generation conditioned on the reflection content, not a copy of the ChatGPT annotation. The main tables (Tables 1, 2, 3, 12) report Word F1, BLEU, Distinct, Knowledge F1, and Goal Success Rate, which are computed against gold reference responses, gold knowledge triples, and the gold goal path; they do not use ChatGPT's consistency judgments as the evaluation signal. The pairwise human evaluation uses three graduate annotators judging consistency with user profile, dialogue history, domain knowledge, and subgoals, which are the same dimensions targeted by the framework; this is training/evaluation alignment rather than a definitional reduction. The only self-referential element is Section 6.4's quality check of ChatGPT and the reflection model, which does not state an independent gold standard and therefore provides limited corroboration, but this analysis is not load-bearing for the central claim and is not an equation-level circularity. The paper also openly acknowledges its dependence on the closed-source GPT-4 annotator as a limitation. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the adopted TPNet path planner is external prior work and is used only to supply goal paths, not to justify the correctness of CRC. Lack of significance testing and single-seed runs are robustness weaknesses, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This empirical paper makes no mathematical derivation. It relies on the validity of the reflection-correction training paradigm (a domain assumption), the quality of ChatGPT annotations (a domain assumption with limited in-house validation), and the adequacy of the TPNet goal-planning setup for evaluating response generation. No new physical or abstract entities are introduced. Standard hyperparameters (learning rates, LoRA rank, epochs) are listed in Appendix D and not treated as object-level free parameters.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Consistency of generated responses with the four context elements (user profile, dialogue history, domain knowledge, subgoal) is the right objective for GPDS quality.
    The entire CRC framework optimizes these four dimensions (Section 1 and 4). If these are not the relevant failure modes, the central claim loses force. The paper provides supporting evidence via ablations in Section 6.1, but the choice is not derived from prior theory.
  • domain assumption ChatGPT (GPT-4o) annotations of inconsistency types and correction suggestions are accurate enough to serve as training signal.
    Section 4 uses ChatGPT as the sole annotator for the reflection stage. Section 6.4 reports 94% accuracy on a 500-sample subset, but this is the authors' own evaluation against the same annotation scheme, not an independent gold standard.
  • domain assumption The goal-oriented path provided by TPNet is a fixed and adequate input; response generation can be improved independently of path quality.
    The paper adopts the TPNet path for all experiments (Section 5.1) and only tests the Golden-LLaMA3 variant with the annotated golden path to probe path dependence. This doesn't invalidate the response-generation claim but limits generalization to other planners.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Goal-oriented Proactive Dialogue Systems via Consistency Reflection and Correction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5OLVJSPZ

@misc{pith2026250613366,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Goal-oriented Proactive Dialogue Systems via Consistency Reflection and Correction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5OLVJSPZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13366}
}
read the original abstract

Goal-oriented proactive dialogue systems are designed to guide user conversations seamlessly towards specific objectives by planning a goal-oriented path. However, previous research has focused predominantly on optimizing these paths while neglecting the inconsistencies that may arise between generated responses and dialogue contexts, including user profiles, dialogue history, domain knowledge, and subgoals. To address this issue, we introduce a model-agnostic two-stage Consistency Reflection and Correction (CRC) framework. Specifically, in the consistency reflection stage, the model is prompted to reflect on the discrepancies between generated responses and dialogue contexts, identifying inconsistencies and suggesting possible corrections. In the consistency correction stage, the model generates responses that are more consistent with the dialogue context based on these reflection results. We conducted experiments on various model architectures with different parameter sizes, including encoder-decoder models (BART, T5) and decoder-only models (GPT-2, DialoGPT, Phi3, Mistral and LLaMA3), and the experimental results on three datasets demonstrate that our CRC framework significantly improves the consistency between generated responses and dialogue contexts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13366 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of GPDS from the DuRecDial (Liu et al., 2020) dataset, where the system responses are generated by TPNet (Wang et al., 2024a). main knowledge indicates that Zhu is the director of the movie. Lastly, there is an inconsistency with the user profile. The system might generate a re￾sponse that does not align with the user’s profile, as illustrated in Appendix A. For instance, the user’s profile shows a prefer… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our CRC framework. stage, we further guide the RG model to regenerate responses that are consistent with dialogue contexts on the reflection results. Consistency Reflection As introduced in Section 1, the responses generated by the RG model may ex￾hibit inconsistencies with dialogue context. These inconsistencies primarily pertain to the user profile U, the domain knowledge K, the dialogue history H, and… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pairwise evaluation results for TP-LLaMA3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Subgoal failure rates on DuRecDial. results of human evaluation using TP-BART, TP￾T5, TP-GPT2 and TP-DialoGPT, which illustrate the same trend and further ensure the effectiveness of our CRC. 6.3 SubGoals Failure Analysis It is essential for a goal-oriented proactive d…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pairwise evaluation results for TP-BART, TP-T5, TP-GPT2, and TP-Dial. Abbreviations: UP (user [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of subgoal failure rates on DuRec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. SimRPD: Optimizing Recruitment Proactive Dialogue Agents through Simulator-Based Data Evaluation and Selection

    cs.AI 2026-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    SimRPD trains a recruiting dialogue agent on simulator-generated conversations filtered to match real intent-transition patterns, lifting contact-acquisition rate from 3.8% to 4.4% in a live A/B test.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Marah Abdin, Jyoti Aneja, Hany Awadalla, Ahmed Awadallah, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Nguyen Bach, Amit Bahree, Arash Bakhtiari, Jianmin Bao, Harkirat Behl, et al. 2024. Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phone . arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14219

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2024. GPT-4 Technical Report . arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Sch \"o n

    Barry Checkoway and Donald A. Sch \"o n. 1985. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action . Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 4:476

    work page 1985

  4. [4]

    Ruijun Chen, Jin Wang, Liang-Chih Yu, and Xuejie Zhang. 2023. Learning to Memorize Entailment and Discourse Relations for Persona-consistent Dialogues . In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 12653--12661

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Yang Deng, Wenxuan Zhang, Weiwen Xu, Wenqiang Lei, Tat-Seng Chua, and Wai Lam. 2023. A Unified Multi-task Learning Framework for Multi-goal Conversational Recommender Systems . ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 41(3):1 -- 25

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Zuohui Fu, Yikun Xian, Yongfeng Zhang, and Yi Zhang. 2020. Tutorial on Conversational Recommendation Systems . In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, page 751–753

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Edward J Hu, yelong shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. Lo RA : Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models . In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, pages 1--13

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, et al. 2023. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825

    arXiv 2023

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Zeming Liu, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, and Wanxiang Che. 2021. D u R ec D ial 2.0: A Bilingual Parallel Corpus for Conversational Recommendation . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4335--4347

    2021

  2. [10]

    Zeming Liu, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, Wanxiang Che, and Ting Liu. 2020. Towards Conversational Recommendation over Multi-Type Dialogs . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1036--1049

    2020

  3. [11]

    Zeming Liu, Ding Zhou, Hao Liu, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, Wanxiang Che, Ting Liu, and Hui Xiong. 2023. Graph-Grounded Goal Planning for Conversational Recommendation . IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(5):4923--4939

    2023

  4. [12]

    Haoyu Song, Yan Wang, Kaiyan Zhang, Wei-Nan Zhang, and Ting Liu. 2021. B o B : BERT over BERT for training persona-based dialogue models from limited personalized data. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th Inte...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation La...

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Fucheng Wang, Yunfei Yin, Faliang Huang, and Kaigui Wu. 2023 a . Please Don't Answer Out of Context: Personalized Dialogue Generation Fusing Persona and Context . In Proceedings of the 2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, pages 1--8

    2023

  7. [15]

    Jian Wang, Yi Cheng, Dongding Lin, Chak Leong, and Wenjie Li. 2023 b . Target-oriented Proactive Dialogue Systems with Personalization: Problem Formulation and Dataset Curation . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Jian Wang, Dongding Lin, and Wenjie Li. 2022. Follow Me: Conversation Planning for Target-driven Recommendation Dialogue Systems . arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03516

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Jian Wang, Dongding Lin, and Wenjie Li. 2023 c . Dialogue Planning via Brownian Bridge Stochastic Process for Goal-directed Proactive Dialogue . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 370--387

    2023

  10. [18]

    Jian Wang, Dongding Lin, and Wenjie Li. 2024 a . A Target-Driven Planning Approach for Goal-Directed Dialog Systems . IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 35(8):10475--10487

    2024

  11. [19]

    Jian Wang, Dongding Lin, and Wenjie Li. 2024 b . Target-constrained Bidirectional Planning for Generation of Target-oriented Proactive Dialogue . ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 42(5):1--27

    2024

  12. [20]

    Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi

    Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023 d . Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational L...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng, Pu Zhao, Jiazhan Feng, Chongyang Tao, Qingwei Lin, and Daxin Jiang. 2024 a . Wizard LM : Empowering Large Pre-Trained Language Models to Follow Complex Instructions . In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Learnin...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Kaishuai Xu, Yi Cheng, Wenjun Hou, Qiaoyu Tan, and Wenjie Li. 2024 b . Reasoning Like a Doctor: Improving Medical Dialogue Systems via Diagnostic Reasoning Process Alignment . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024, pages 6796--6814

    2024

  15. [23]

    Xiaotong Zhang, Xuefang Jia, Han Liu, Xinyue Liu, and Xianchao Zhang. 2024. A Goal Interaction Graph Planning Framework for Conversational Recommendation . In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 19578--19587

    2024

  16. [24]

    Junkai Zhou, Liang Pang, Huawei Shen, and Xueqi Cheng. 2023. S im OAP : Improve Coherence and Consistency in Persona-based Dialogue Generation via Over-sampling and Post-evaluation . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pa...

    2023

  17. [25]

    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...

  18. [26]

    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 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.