Papers › ARTA: Collection and Classification of Ambiguous Requests and Thoughtful Actions
ARTA: Collection and Classification of Ambiguous Requests and Thoughtful Actions
Shohei Tanaka, Koichiro Yoshino, Katsuhito Sudoh, Satoshi Nakamura
Human-assisting systems such as dialogue systems must take thoughtful, appropriate actions not only for clear and unambiguous user requests, but also for ambiguous user requests, even if the users themselves are not aware of their potential requirements. To construct such a dialogue agent, we collected a corpus and developed a model that classifies ambiguous user requests into corresponding system actions. In order to collect a high-quality corpus, we asked workers to input antecedent user requests whose pre-defined actions could be regarded as thoughtful. Although multiple actions could be identified as thoughtful for a single user request, annotating all combinations of user requests and system actions is impractical. For this reason, we fully annotated only the test data and left the annotation of the training data incomplete. In order to train the classification model on such training data, we applied the positive/unlabeled (PU) learning method, which assumes that only a part of the data is labeled with positive examples. The experimental results show that the PU learning method achieved better performance than the general positive/negative (PN) learning method to classify thoughtful actions given an ambiguous user request.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections