1. ( current & future work ) explicit confirmation implicit confirmation unplanned implicit confirmation request constructing accurate beliefs in spoken dialog systems Dan Bohus, Alexander I. Rudnicky Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University 1 abstract phone-based, mixed initiative system for conference room reservations access to live schedules for 13 rooms in 2 buildings size, location, a/v equipment Roomline ( current & future work ) We propose a data-driven approach for constructing more accurate beliefs over concept values in spoken dialog systems by integrating information across multiple turns in the conversation. The approach bridges existing work in confidence annotation and correction detection and provides a unified framework for belief updating. It significantly outperforms heuristic rules currently used in most spoken dialog systems. 3 user response analysis a k-hypotheses + other 4 models. results 5 conclusion 2 problem 3 dataset b estimated impact on task success c using information from n-best lists user study with the RoomLine spoken dialog system 46 participants (1 st time users) 10 scenario-based interactions each 449 dialogs 8278 turns corpus transcribed and annotated responses to explicit confirmations YesNoOther Correct (1159)94% [93%] 0% [0%] 5% [7%] Incorrect (279)1% [6%] 72% [57%] 27% [37%] responses to implicit confirmations YesNoOther Correct (554)30% [0%] 7% [0%] 63% [100%] Incorrect (229)6% [0%] 33% [15%] 61% [85%] how do users respond to correct and incorrect confirmations? explicit confirmation User corrects User does not correct Correct01159 Incorrect25029 implicit confirmation User corrects User does not correct Correct2552 Incorrect111118 users interact strategically ~ correct later correct later ~critical552 critical1447 how often users correct the system? 31.15 8.41 3.57 2.71 30% 20% 10% 0% 30.40 23.37 16.15 15.33 30% 20% 10% 0% 15.40 14.36 12.64 10.37 20% 10% 0% explicit confirmation implicit confirmation unplanned implicit confirmation proposed a data-driven approach for constructing more accurate beliefs in task-oriented spoken dialog systems bridge insights from detection of misunderstandings and corrections into a unified belief updating framework model significantly outperforms heuristics currently used in most spoken dialog systems initialinitial confidence score of top hypothesis, # of initial hypotheses, concept type (bool / non-bool), concept identity; system actionindicators describing other system actions in conjunction with current confirmation; user response acoustic / prosodic acoustic and language scores, duration, pitch (min, max, mean, range, std.dev, min and max slope, plus normalized versions), voiced-to-unvoiced ratio, speech rate, initial pause; lexicalnumber of words, lexical terms highly correlated with corrections (MI); grammaticalnumber of slots (new, repeated), parse fragmentation, parse gaps; dialogdialog state, turn number, expectation match, new value for concept, timeout, barge-in. evaluation initial (error rate in system beliefs before the update) heuristic (error rate in system beliefs after the update – using the heuristic update rules) proposed model (error rate of the proposed logistic model tree) oracle (oracle error rate) features model Conf upd (th C ) M (Conf init (th C ), SA(C), R) logistic model tree [one for each system action] 1-level deep, root splits on answer-type (YES / NO / other) leaves contain stepwise logistic regression models sample efficient, feature selection good probability outputs (minimize cross entropy between model predictions and reality) 10% 0% 20% 30% 16.17% 5.52% 30.83% 6.06% 7.86% 10% 20% 0% 26.16% 17.56% 30.46% 21.45% 22.69% 0% 12% 4% 8% 15.15% 10.72% 15.49% 14.02% 12.95% 4% 0% 8% 12% 9.49% 6.08% 98.14% 9.64% 45.03% 19.23% 80.00% 25.66% 20% 0% 40% unexpected updates initial heuristic proposed model (basic feature set) proposed model (basic + priors) oracle As a prerequisite for increased robustness and making better decisions, dialog systems must be able to accurately assess the reliability of the information they use. Typically, recognition confidence scores provide an initial assessment for the reliability of the information obtained from the user. Ideally, a system should leverage information available in subsequent turns to update and improve the accuracy of its beliefs. belief updating problem: given an initial belief over a concept Belief t (C), a system action SA(C) and a user response R, compute the updated belief Belief t+1 (C) S:starting at what time do you need the room? U: [STARTING AT TEN A M / 0.45] starting at ten a.m. start-time = {10:00 / 0.45} S:did you say you wanted the room starting at ten a.m.? U: [GUEST UNTIL ONE / 0.89] yes until noon start-time = {?} explicit confirmation (correct value) S:for when do you need the room? U: [NEXT THURSDAY / 0.75] next Thursday date = {2004-08-26 / 0.75} S:a room for Thursday, August 26 th … starting at what time do you need the room? U: [FIVE TO SEVEN P_M / 0.58] five to seven p.m. date = {?} implicit confirmation (correct value) S:how may I help you? U: [THREE TO RESERVE A ROOM / 0.65] Id like to reserve a room start-time = {15:00 / 0.65} S:starting at three p.m. … for which day do you need the conference room? U: [CAN YOU DETAILS TIME / NONUNDER.(0.0)] I need a different time start-time = {?} implicit confirmation (incorrect value) belief representation k hypotheses + other multinomial generalized linear model system actions: all actions explicit confirmation implicit confirmation unplanned impl. confirmation request [system asks for the value for a concept] unexpected update [system received a value for a concept, without asking for it, e.g. as a result of a misrecognition or the user over-answering or attempting a topic shift] features added prior information on concepts priors constructed manually belief representation: most accurately: probability distribution over the set of possible values but: system is not likely to hear more than 3 or 4 conflicting values in our data, the maximum number of hypotheses for a concept accumulated through interaction was 3; the system heard more than 1 hypothesis for a concept in only 6.9% of cases compressed belief representation: k hypotheses + other for now, k = 1: top hypothesis + other [see current and future work for extensions] for now, only updates after system confirmation actions given an initial confidence score for the top hypothesis h for a concept C - Conf init (th C ), construct an updated confidence score for the hypothesis h - Conf upd (th C ) - in light of the system confirmation action SA(C) and the follow-up user response R compressed belief updating problem: how does the accuracy of the belief updating model affect task success? relates the accuracy of the belief updates to overall task success through a logistic regression model accuracy of belief updates: measured as AVG-LIK of the correct hypothesis word-error-rate acts as a co-founding factor model: P(Task Success=1) α + βWER + γAVG-LIK fitted model using 443 data-points (dialog sessions) β, γ capture the impact of WER and AVG-LIK on overall task success 0 20406080100 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 1.0 0 20406080100 word-error-rate probability of task success avg.lik. = 0.5 avg.lik. = 0.6 avg.lik. = 0.7 avg.lik. = 0.8 avg.lik. = 0.9 current heuristic proposed model avg.lik. = 0.5 avg.lik. = 0.6 current heuristic avg.lik. = 0.7 proposed model avg.lik. = 0.8 avg.lik. = 0.9 average word-error rate nativesnon-natives probability of task success currently: using only the top hypothesis from the recognizer next: extract more information from n-best list or lattices