Empirically evaluating an adaptable spoken dialogue system

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 407, Issue , 1999, Pages 55-64

  Litman, Diane J ^a   Pan, Shimei ^b  

^a AT AND T LABS RESEARCH   (United States)

^b Columbia University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SPEECH PROCESSING;

DIALOGUE STRATEGY; EMPIRICAL EVALUATIONS; EVALUATION MEASURES; IMPROVE PERFORMANCE; REAL TIME; SPOKEN DIALOGUE SYSTEM; TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES; TRAIN SCHEDULE;

REAL TIME SYSTEMS;

EID: 84943638175     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-7091-2490-1_6     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. Cohen, P. (1995). Empirical Methods for Artificial lntelligence. MIT Press, Boston.
2. Danieli, M., and Gerbino, E. (1995). Metries for evaluating dialogue strategies in a spoken language system. In Proc. AAAI Spring Symposium on Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Generation, 34-39.
3. Kamm, C., Narayanan, S., Dutton, D., and Ritenour, R. (1997). Evaluating spoken dialag systems for telecommunication services. In Proc. 5th European Conf on Speech Communication and Technology.
4. Kamm, C., Litman, D., and Walker, M. (1998). From novice to expert: The effect of tutorials on user expertise with spoken dialogue systems. In Proc. 5th International Conf on Spoken Language Processing, 1211-1214.
5. Levin, E., and Pieraccini, R. (1997). A stochastic model of computer-human interaction for leaming dialogue strategies. In Proc. 5th European Conf on Speech Communication and Technology.
6. Litman, D., Pan, S., and Walker, M. (1998). Evaluating Response Strategies in a Web-Based Spaken Dialogue Agent. In Proc. 36th Annual Meeting ofthe Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conf on Computational Linguistics, 780-786.
7. Litrnan, D., Walker, M., and Kearns, M. (1999). Automatic detection of poor speech recognition at the dialogue Ievel. Manuscript submitted for publication.
8. Mange, P., and Cappella, J., eds. (1980). Multivariate Techniques in Human Communication Research. Academic Press, New York.
9. Smith, R. W. (1998). An evaluation of strategies for selectively verifying utterance meanings in spoken natural language dialog. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 48:627-647.
10. Strachan, L., Anderson, J., Sneesby, M., and Evans, M. (1997). Pragmatic usermodeHing in a commercial software system. In Proc. 6th International Conf on User Modeling, 189-200.
11. van Zanten, G. V. (1998). Adaptive mixed-initiative dialogue management. Technical Report 52, IPO, Center for Research on User-System Interaction.
12. Walker, M., Hindle, D., Fromer, J., Fabbrizio, G. D., and Mestel, C. (1997a). Evaluating competing agent strategies for a voice email agent. In Proc. 5th European Conf on Speech Communication and Technology.
13. Walker, M., Litman, D., Kamm, C., and Abella, A. (1997b). PARADISE: A general framework for evaluating spoken dialogue agents. In Proc. 35th Annual Meeting of the Associationfor Computational Linguistics and 8th Conf ofthe European Chapter ofthe Associationfor Computational Linguistics, 271-280.
14. Walker, M., Fromer, J., and Narayanan, S. (1998). Leaming optimal dialogue strategies: A case study of a spoken dialogue agent for email. In Proc. 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conf on Computational Linguistics, 1345-1352.