Patent Grant
10545648
A growing number of people are using smart devices, such as smart phones, tablet computers, laptop computers, and so on, to perform a variety of functionality. In many instances, the users interact with their devices through a virtual assistant. The virtual assistant may communicate with a user to perform a desired service or task, such as searching for content, checking-in to a flight, setting a calendar appointment, and so on. In order to enhance the user's experience with the virtual assistant, there is an increasing need to efficiently evaluate conversations had between users and the virtual assistant to fix potential problems with the virtual assistant.
The detailed description is set forth with reference to the accompanying figures. In the figures, the left-most digit(s) of a reference number identifies the figure in which the reference number first appears. The use of the same reference numbers in different figures indicates similar or identical items or features.
This disclosure describes techniques and architectures for evaluating conversations. In some instances, conversations with users, virtual assistants, and others may be analyzed to identify potential risks within a language model that is employed by the virtual assistants and other entities. The potential risks may be evaluated by administrators, users, systems, and others to identify potential issues with the language model that need to be addressed. This may allow the language model to be improved and enhance user experience with the virtual assistants and others that employ the language model.
In some implementations, the techniques and architectures described herein may analyze conversation data for one or more conversations. The conversation data may generally include back-and-forth communications between a user and a virtual assistant or other system that employs Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques, such as customer service agents. The NLP techniques may map user input to one or more intents (e.g., intent units) that are defined by a language model. Based on the mapping, a task may be performed, such as presenting a response (e.g., textual response, audio response, etc.), performing an action (e.g., booking a hotel room, scheduling an appointment, etc.), and so on. The conversation data may be analyzed to determine a confidence value for an identified intent. The confidence value may indicate a level of confidence, or measure of confidence, that the intent is accurately determined for the input (e.g., does the intent satisfy the input). To illustrate, if, during a conversation with a virtual assistant, a user asks “What is my flight status,” the NLP techniques may map the user input to an intent unit that is associated with “flight status.” Based on the identified intent unit of “flight status,” a task to may be performed by the virtual assistant, such as providing a response of “Your flight is scheduled to leave on-time at 3:30.” Here, the techniques and architectures may analyze the conversation to determine a level of confidence that the “flight status” intent unit is the correct intent unit that should have been identified.
A confidence value may be determined based on a variety of risk factors. The one or more risk factors may include various forms of information. For example, a risk factor may indicate whether or not an intent is identified for user input, whether or not user input proceeded a failure to identify an intent for other user input, whether or not user input is involved in a conversation that included a failure to identify an intent, whether or not a same intent is identified in a conversation, a tone of user's voice, a facial expression of a user, and so on. Other example risk factors are discussed in further detail herein. A “risk factor” may sometimes be referred to as a “risk indicator,” while a confidence value may sometimes be referred to as a “risk score.” In some instances, multiple risk factors may be used and weighted to generate a confidence value.
In some examples, a confidence value may be used to evaluate an intent unit. Here, the confidence value may be used to determine a health status (e.g., unit risk) that indicates a level of risk associated with the intent unit. To illustrate, in analyzing a variety of conversation data over time, multiple pieces of user input may be mapped to a same intent unit. If confidence values for the multiple pieces of user input indicate a relatively low confidence that the multiple pieces of user input should have hit the intent unit, then the health status of the intent unit may indicate that the intent unit is relatively risky. In other words, the health status may indicate that the intent unit needs to be updated. In some instances, the health status may be used to rank the intent unit relative to other intent units. The ranking and/or health status may be presented to an administrator of a language model or others, so that a language model may be evaluated. In some examples, the user may update the intent unit and/or other elements of the language model in order to address the risky intent unit. Alternatively, or additionally, the user may cause that the intent unit and/or corresponding user input be released to other users for further evaluation. To illustrate, the intent unit may be released to voters to obtain feedback (e.g., votes) from users regarding an accuracy of matching user input to the intent unit. The voters may view the intent unit and user input that hit the intent unit and provide an opinion as to whether or not they agree that the intent unit should have been identified for the user input. The results of the voting may be provided to the administrator so that further action may be taken (e.g., update the intent unit if the voters agree that the intent unit is risky).
Further, in some instances a confidence value may be used to determine whether or not a task should be performed during a conversation. For example, a confidence value may be generated as the conversation is occurring (e.g., in real-time). The confidence value may become a form of context to conversation that effects how the conversation proceeds. For example, if the confidence value is relatively high (e.g., more than a threshold), a task associated with the intent may be performed (e.g., in response to input of “How can I make one more reservation, then add it to the ticket,” provide an answer “you need to login and click add flight to reservation” if the confidence value is relatively high). If the confidence value is relatively low (e.g., below a threshold), the user may be prompted for additional information (e.g., in response to input of “How can I make one more reservation, then add it to the ticket,” provide a follow-up question of “what ticket are you referring to” if the confidence value is relatively low).
As this discussion highlights, the techniques and architectures described herein provide valuable resources to administrators and others. In some instances, a risky element of a language model may be identified. This may provide a relatively broad understanding of the language model and/or help prioritize what elements to update in the language model. Further, by improving the language model, this may ultimately enhance user interactions with virtual assistants and other entities that employ the language model. In some instances, the techniques may evaluate relatively large data sets that include thousands or hundreds-of-thousands of pieces of user input in an efficient and timely manner. Further, the techniques and architectures may evaluate a language model that may include thousands or hundreds-of-thousands of elements (e.g., intent units, etc.).
This brief introduction is provided for the reader's convenience and is not intended to limit the scope of the claims, nor the proceeding sections. Furthermore, the techniques described in detail herein may be implemented in a number of ways and in a number of contexts. Some example implementations and contexts are provided with reference to the following figures, as described below in more detail. It is to be appreciated, however, that the following implementations and contexts are but some of many.
Example Architecture
The service provider 106 may include one or more computing devices. The one or more computing devices may be implemented as one or more desktop computers, laptop computers, servers, and so on. The one or more computing devices may be configured in a cluster, data center, cloud computing environment, or a combination thereof. In one example, the service provider 106 provides cloud computing resources, including computational resources, storage resources, networking resources, and the like, that operate remotely to the smart device 102 and/or the computing device 112.
As noted above, the service provider 106 may perform a variety of operations. For example, the service provider 106 may analyze conversation data based on a variety of risk factors to generate confidence values for user input. A confidence value may then be associated with the corresponding user input and/or an intent unit that was hit for the user input. Additionally, or alternatively, the service provider 106 may determine a health status of an intent unit based on user input that is mapped to the intent unit. For example, the health status of an intent unit may indicate a number of user inputs (that have been mapped to the intent unit and) that have less than a threshold confidence value relative to a number of user inputs that have been mapped to the intent unit overall.
Further, the service provider 106 may provide a variety of user interfaces to assist in evaluating conversation data, such as any of the interfaces of
The smart device 102, the computing device 112, and/or an output device associated with the service provider 106 may comprise any type of computing device that is configured to perform an operation. For example, the smart device 102 and/or the computing device 112 may be implemented as a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a server, a smart phone, an electronic reader device, a mobile handset, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a portable navigation device, a portable gaming device, a tablet computer, a wearable computer (e.g., a watch, optical head-mounted display (e.g., a pair of glass(es) with computing capabilities), etc.), a portable media player, a television, a set-top box, a computer system in a car, an appliance, a camera, a robot, a hologram system, a security system, a home-based computer system (e.g., intercom system, home media system, etc.), a projector, an automated teller machine (ATM), and so on. In some instances, a computing device is a mobile device, while in other instances the computing device is a stationary device.
The smart device 102 may output a virtual assistant to the user 104 via a conversation user interface. The virtual assistant may interact with the user 104 in a conversational manner to perform tasks. For example, in response to a query from the user 104 to “find the nearest restaurant,” a virtual assistant may provide information through the conversation user interface that identifies the nearest restaurant. As such, the user 104 and/or the virtual assistant may communicate in a natural language format. A virtual assistant may be configured for multi-modal input/output (e.g., receive and/or respond in audio or speech, text, touch, gesture, etc.), multi-language communication (e.g., receive and/or respond according to any type of human language), multi-channel communication (e.g., carry out conversations through a variety of computing devices, such as continuing a conversation as a user transitions from using one computing device to another), and other types of input/output or communication.
In some implementations, a virtual assistant may comprise an intelligent personal assistant. A virtual assistant may generally perform tasks for users and act as an interface to information of a service provider, information of the smart device 102, information of the service provider 106, and/or any type of information. For example, in response to input from the user 104, a virtual assistant may access content items stored on a service provider and provide a content item to the user.
Further, in some implementations a virtual assistant may embody a human-like persona (e.g., human emulation) and/or artificial intelligence (AI). For example, a virtual assistant may be represented by an image or avatar that is displayed on the smart device 102. An avatar may comprise an animated character that may take on any number of shapes and appearances, and/or resemble a human talking to a user. In some instances, the avatar may be arranged as a representative of a service provider or the service provider 106, while in other instances the avatar may be a dedicated personal assistant to a user. Example virtual assistants are described in U.S. application Ser. No. 14/293,586, filed Jun. 2, 2014, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The smart device 102 may be equipped with one or more processors, memory, and/or one or more network interfaces. The smart device 102 may also include one or more cameras, one or more displays, one or more microphones, one or more speakers, and/or one or more sensors. These components may be communicatively coupled to the one or more processors. The one or more processors may include a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a microprocessor, a digital signal processor and so on. The one or more cameras may include a front facing camera and/or a rear facing camera. The one or more displays may include a touch screen, a Liquid-crystal Display (LCD), a Light-emitting Diode (LED) display, an organic LED display, a plasma display, an electronic paper display or any other type of technology. The one or more sensors may include an accelerometer, compass, gyroscope, magnetometer, Global Positioning System (GPS), olfactory sensor (e.g., for smell), heart rate sensor, light sensor, capacitive sensor, inductive sensor, eye tracking device, or other sensor.
Example Devices
The memory 204 may include software functionality configured as one or more “modules.” The term “module” is intended to represent example divisions of the software for purposes of discussion, and is not intended to represent any type of requirement or required method, manner or necessary organization. Accordingly, while various “modules” are discussed, their functionality and/or similar functionality could be arranged differently (e.g., combined into a fewer number of modules, broken into a larger number of modules, etc.). Further, while certain functions are described herein as being implemented as software modules configured for execution by a processor, in other embodiments, any or all of the functions may be implemented (e.g., performed) in whole or in part by hardware logic components. For example, and without limitation, illustrative types of hardware logic components that can be used include Field-programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), Application-specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), Program-specific Standard Products (ASSPs), System-on-a-chip systems (SOCs), Complex Programmable Logic Devices (CPLDs), etc.
The memory 204 (as well as all other memory described herein) may include one or a combination of computer-readable media (e.g., computer storage media). Computer-readable media includes volatile and non-volatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. Computer-readable media includes, but is not limited to, phase change memory (PRAM), static random-access memory (SRAM), dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), other types of random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technology, compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM), digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other non-transitory medium that can be used to store information for access by a computing device. As defined herein, computer-readable media does not include communication media, such as modulated data signals and carrier waves. As such, computer-readable media is non-transitory media.
As illustrated in
The input processing module 208 may be configured to perform various techniques to process input received from a user. For instance, input that is received from the user 104 during a conversation with a virtual assistant may be sent to the input processing module 208 for processing. If the input is speech input, the input processing module 208 may perform speech recognition techniques to convert the input into a format that is understandable by a computing device, such as text. Additionally, or alternatively, the input processing module 208 may utilize Natural Language Processing (NLP) to interpret or derive a meaning and/or concept of the input. The speech recognition and/or NLP techniques may include known or new techniques.
In many instances, the input processing module 208 may map user input to an intent unit based on a pattern of components for the user input. The pattern may include an order and/or proximity of the components to each other. Each term in the user input may be mapped to a component that represents a variation(s) of a term(s). The pattern of components of the user input may then be mapped to a pattern defined within an intent unit. The intent unit may be associated with a task (described below), which may be performed to satisfy the user input. The task may include providing a response to a user, performing an action (e.g., booking a flight), and so on. As an example, a component for the term “car” may include synonyms and/or spelling variations of the term, such as “automobile,” “kar,” etc. Example components include Vocab Terms (e.g., vocabulary synonyms and/or spelling variations), Helper Terms (e.g., words or phrases that are commonly used, but have only one meaning, such as “and,” “or,” “but,” etc.), Wild Cards (e.g., placeholders for any random word or words), and so on. Example components are described in U.S. application Ser. No. 12/014,229, filed on Jan. 15, 2008, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The task and response module 210 may be configured to identify and/or perform tasks and/or formulate a response to input and based on an intent unit the input has been mapped to. In general, the triggering of an intent unit may cause a tasks and/or responses to be provided by the task and response module 210. As noted above, users may interact with virtual assistants to cause tasks to be performed by the virtual assistants. In some instances, a task may be performed in response to explicit user input, such as playing music in response to “please play music.” In other instances, a task may be performed in response to inferred user input requesting that that the task be performed, such as providing weather information in response to “the weather looks nice today.” In yet further instances, a task may be performed when an event has occurred (and possibly when no input has been received), such as providing flight information an hour before a flight, presenting flight information upon arrival of a user at an airport, and so on.
A task may include any type of operation that is performed at least in part by a computing device. For example, a task may include logging a user into a site, setting a calendar appointment, resetting a password for a user, purchasing an item, opening an application, sending an instruction to a device to perform an act, sending an email, navigating to a web site, upgrading a user's seat assignment, outputting content (e.g., outputting audio (an audible answer), video, an image, text, a hyperlink, etc.), and so on. Further, a task may include performing an operation according to one or more criteria (e.g., one or more default settings), such as sending an email through a particular email account, providing directions with a particular mobile application, searching for content through a particular search engine, and so on.
A task may include or be associated with a response to a user (e.g., “here is your requested information,” outputting content, etc.). A response may be provided through a conversation user interface associated with a virtual assistant. In some instances, a response may be addressed to or otherwise tailored to a user (e.g., “Yes, John, as a Gold Customer you are entitled to a seat upgrade, and I have provided some links below that may be of interest to you . . . ”). Input and/or output between users and virtual assistants (e.g., conversations) may be stored in a virtual assistant conversation data store 218.
The risk indicator module 212 may be configured to determine a measure of confidence (e.g., confidence value) that input received from the user 104 has been mapped to the correct intent unit of a language model (stored in a virtual assistant data store 220). The risk indicator module 212 may use one or more risk indicators, or risk factors, from a risk indicator data store 222 in order to identify the measure of confidence that the input was mapped to the correct intent unit. The one or more factors may include various forms of information. A factor may sometimes be referred to as a “risk indicator,” while a confidence value may sometimes be referred to as a “risk score,” “measure of confidence,” or “degree of confidence.” In some instances, multiple factors may be used and weighted to generate a confidence value. The weighted factors may be combined to form the confidence value. Example factors that may be used to evaluate conversation data include:
In some examples, a confidence value may be generated after a conversation has occurred. For example, a confidence value may be generated for an action that was performed for user input (e.g., evaluate previous conversations between users and virtual assistants). While in other instances, a confidence value may be generated in real-time as a conversation is taking place.
The confidence value may have various uses. For example, the confidence value may be used to determine whether or not an input received from a user corresponds to the intent unit that the input was mapped to. For instance, if the confidence value is below (or above) a predetermined threshold, it may be determined that there is a risk the input was incorrectly (or alternatively correctly) mapped to the corresponding intent unit. In another example, the confidence value may be used during a conversation. If, for example, the confidence value is less than a predetermined threshold, a predetermined response could be provided (e.g., Input: “How high is the Eiffel tower?” Answer: “I don't know a lot about world attractions, but I can do a Google® search for you”) and/or a follow-up question may be provided to obtain further information (e.g., for input of “what's the status,” a follow-up question of “are you referring to the status of a flight” may be presented). Alternatively, if the confidence value is greater than the predetermined threshold, a task associated with the intent unit may be automatically performed. As such, the confidence value may provide context to interpret input and/or formulate a response.
Additionally, the risk indicator module 212 may further allow a user of the service provider 106 to configure a weight associated with the individual risk indicators, or factors, stored in the risk indicator data store 222. For example, a risk indicator that an administrator determines to be more important, or determinative, in determining whether an input is mapped to the appropriate intent unit may be weighted more heavily than other risk indicators.
The techniques and architectures of the risk indicator module 212 may be utilized to evaluate conversation data in a variety of contexts. In one example, conversation data that is obtained from a conversation between a user and a virtual assistant may be analyzed. In another example, conversation data from a conversation between a user and another user may be analyzed. In yet a further example, a conversation between a chat bot and a user may be analyzed.
The voting module 214 may be configured to allow voters to vote on whether or not user input was correctly mapped to an intent unit. In some examples, the voters may answer “yes,” “no,” or “unsure” when asked whether the input was correctly mapped to the intent unit. In some examples, the voters may be selected from a pre-approved voter list. The voters may have been determined to have knowledge sufficient to vote on mappings between intent units and inputs. In some examples, a particular voter may only be approved for certain intent units. In some instances, a predetermined number of voters may vote on a same item (e.g., a same intent unit mapped to user input).
In some examples, two or more voters may be prompted for their feedback regarding mapping of user input to intent units. This may help eliminate bias between individual voters. Further details regarding interfaces of the voting module 214 are described in greater detail below with respect to
The conversation review module 216 may allow a user, voter, or an administrator to review inputs and their respective intent units (e.g., tasks and responses), as well as votes received via the voting module 214 from voters. In some examples, the conversation review module 216 may allow a user (e.g., administrator) to review a conversation including an input and which intent unit the input was mapped to. Additional information may be provided to an administrator, such as a type of input (e.g., test question, current input, etc,). Further, the conversation review module 216 may present to an administrator the voting results collected from the voting module 214, and suggest an action to be taken based on the voting results. Various implementations of the conversation review module 216 are discussed further with respect to
In various embodiments, the risk indicator module 212, the voting module 214, the conversation review module 216, or a combination thereof, may be employed to evaluate weights associated with the risk indicators. For example, based on votes cast by voters, and the risk indicators used, a determination can be made to weight a risk indicator move heavily, or less heavily. For example, after viewing one or more conversations, it may be determined that a particular risk indicator generally indicates that input is correctly mapped to the intent unit and determined that the voters also indicate that the input should be mapped to the intent unit. In cases such as this, the particular risk indicator may be identified as being an effective indicator of a measure of risk. Thus, the risk indicator may be relied on more heavily, or weighted more heavily, in determining risk in a language model.
Although the modules 208-216 are illustrated as being included in the service provider 106, in some instances one or more of these modules may be included in the computing device 112, the smart device 102, or elsewhere. As such, in some examples the service provider 106 may be eliminated entirely, such as in the case when all processing is performed locally. In addition, in some instances any of the data stores 218-222 may be included elsewhere.
The memory 304 may include a client application 318, such as a web browser or application (e.g., mobile application, desktop application, etc.). In instances where the computing device 300 is implemented as the computing device 112 of
Example Interfaces
In some examples, the intent units 402 may be used to analyze a dataset of information, such as a chat/conversation history between a human and a virtual assistant. In some examples, a dataset may be created that is composed of conversations involving a virtual assistant where input received from a human is mapped to an intent unit to provide a response or action. As described above, various factors (e.g., risk indicators) may be used to determine a measure of confidence that the input was mapped to was the correct intent unit. By combining the measures of confidence for the conversations in a dataset, health statuses 404(1), 404(2) . . . 404(N) may be calculated for individual units. In some examples, the health statuses 404 may comprise a ratio of a number of user inputs that have a confidence value below a threshold relative to a total number of user inputs that have been mapped to the intent unit. As illustrated, the health status 404(1) for the intent unit “Missing flight credit” may have an overall health status of 4.49%. In some examples, each of the intent units 402 may be sorted (ranked) in a health status column 408 based on an associated health status 404 to identify which intent unit(s) are associated with the highest percentage of risk. Intent units that rank towards the top may have the highest need to be evaluated and/or modified. Thus, by ordering the intent units 402 based on health statuses 404, users may quickly identify which intent unit(s) to select for review and evaluation.
In some examples, the intent unit selection interface 408 may further have an “add to voting” option 408 for of the intent units 404. Thus, a user may check, or select, the intent units 402 that they would like to have analyzed further. Once the user has selected an intent unit for voting, the user may select a submit button 410 to output the selected intent unit for voting. In some examples, after selecting the submit button 410, the selected intent units may be output to a group of voters. In some examples, the voters may be selected from approved lists of voters. For examples, the voters may have already been determined to be competent or qualified to evaluate conversations specific to various intent units.
In some examples, the chart 500 may plot information, such as intent unit(s), along an x-axis. In various examples, information such as inputs (e.g., number of user inputs) may be plotted on a y-axis of the chart 500. Thus, the chart 500 may display intent unit(s) versus inputs contained in a dataset of conversations mapped to intent unit(s). In some examples, intent unit(s) may each have a bar 502 indicates a total number of user inputs that have mapped to that intent unit and a bar 504 indicates a number of user inputs that have mapped to the intent unit and are associated with less than a threshold level of confidence (or higher than a threshold level of risk). As such, the bar 504 may indicate a percentage of the inputs that are risky. In this way, it may be determined visually which intent unit(s) are associated with the largest number of inputs, as well as the riskiest user inputs. In some examples, the chart 500 may further have one or more tabs 506 that, when selected, change the information, or a display of information, contained in the chart 500. For example, by selecting the tab “voting queue” of the one or more tabs 506, the chart 500 may switch to displaying information in another arrangement, such as the arrangement shown in the intent unit selection interface 400.
In some examples, additional information relating to the intent unit may be presented, such as the intent 604, sample questions 606, and related units 608. The intent 604 may comprise a summary of the intent deemed to be associated with the displayed intent unit. Using this displayed intent 604, a user may more easily be able to determine whether the user input 602 was correctly mapped to the intent unit. In some examples, the sample questions 606 may comprise inputs that represent the type of language that the intent unit is meant to answer. For instance, the intent unit in this example (e.g., “change a reservation”) may be represented by inputs such as “I want to change a flight plan,” or “can I use my ticket on a different date?” By presenting these the sample questions 606, a user, or voter may have additional context for determining whether the user input 602 is correctly mapped to the intent unit. The related units 608 may comprise other intent units which are similar to the one the user is viewing. In some examples, a user may select a related unit to view its associated intent. Thus, the intent 604, the sample questions 606, and the related units 608 may be displayed to help a user, or voter, make an informed decision about whether or not the input 602 is correctly mapped to the displayed intent unit.
In some examples, the user may determine, based on the intent 604, the sample questions 606, and/or the related units 608, whether or not the user input 602 was incorrectly mapped to intent unit. The user may select one or more vote buttons 610 to specify a “yes,” “unsure,” and “no” answer. Further, a user may use navigation buttons 612 to navigate to a next, or previous, unit. Thus, using the navigation buttons 612, a user may navigate to a next item to evaluate.
In some instances, the feedback interface 600 may be provided to any number of users so that a relatively large number of votes may be obtained. This may potentially avoid bias across users. Further, by providing an intent unit instead of a response that is provided by a virtual assistant, the users may better evaluate the interactions with the virtual assistant. This may also avoid potential user bias.
In some examples, the risk factor interface 700 may allow a user to select various weights for factors that may be specific to certain datasets. For example, a dataset that contains a relatively small set of conversations, or that is “immature,” may output more IDK responses as there is less training data available to aid in mapping of inputs to intent units. Thus, a user may want to weight IDK response with less importance for a particular dataset as it tends to occur often in an immature dataset that does not have a lot of training data (e.g., test questions).
In some examples, the risk factor interface 700 may be used to configure factors for a newly created dataset. In other examples, the risk factor interface 700 may be used to reconfigure factors for an existing dataset. In some examples, a user may select one of “length of refinement” buttons 702 to identify a range of time for conversations, test questions, or other stored items. For example, a user may select a “0-12 month” time period, which may indicate that only test questions and/or conversations that have been obtained in the previous 12 months may be considered.
In various examples, the test questions 704, the potential new inputs 706, and the current inputs 708 may have slider bars associated with one or more factors, or predictors, where the slider bars allow a user to configure an amount of importance (e.g., weight) they would like to assign to the factors or predictors. The amount of importance may be identified as “low,” “medium,” or “high.” Alternatively, the amount of importance may be on any scale. In some examples, the predictors, or panel of predictors, may assign risk to an input based on the predictor's confidence that the intent unit the input was mapped to is correct, or appropriate.
As one example, a user may wish to add the test questions 704 to a dataset. In one example, the test questions 704 may have a single indication of risk when evaluating the measure of risk. For instance, the test questions 704 may assign risk to an input based on the predictor's measure of confidence that the intent unit to which an input is mapped. As shown, a slider bar may enable a user to select an amount of importance assigned to the test questions. In some examples, an icon (e.g., an “x” or a “✓”) may be next to one or more slider bars to allow a user to turn on, or off, the evaluation of test questions, or other categories.
In some examples, the current inputs 708 may have a panel of to adjust weighting of risk indicators, such as “IDK triggered” and “sequential hits.” For example, a slider bar associated with “IDK triggered” may configure a weighting applied to input that triggered an IDK response. Similarly, a slide bar for “sequential hits” may configure a weighting applied to input that is associated sequential hits, or sequential mappings, to an intent unit during the conversation. In another example, a slider bar for “ties” may be used to configure a weighting applied to ties of mapping an input in a conversation to intent units.
In various examples, advanced settings may be presented which allow a user to weight risk indicators in a more granular fashion. For example, “IDK triggered” may have weightings assigned to sub-items, such as “input triggers IDK” and “input preceded IDK.” In this way, “IDK triggered” may be weighted more heavily when an input triggers the IDK, or when the input precedes the IDK.
Once the various risk factors, or predictors, have had weights assigned to them, the corresponding dataset may be updated based on the weighted factors. While the example illustrates manually assigning weights to factors using a scroll bar, or slider bar, it is understood that in other examples, the weighting may be configured automatically based on feedback received from human voters. For example, if human voters consistently determine that an input is correctly mapped to an intent unit, and that a particular risk factor has consistently determined that the input was mapped to that intent unit, the weight associated with that particular risk factor may be increased as it shows accuracy in determining risk.
In some examples, one or more columns of information may be displayed, such as an input column 802, a unit hit column 804 (e.g., for an intent unit), an input type column 806, a voting results column 808, a voting majority column 810, and an action column 812. However, in some examples, other columns may be added, and/or existing columns may be removed to display different information. In some examples, the input column 802 may identify the input text. The unit hit column 804 may identify the unit hit by (e.g., mapped to) the input. The input type column 806 may identify whether the input was a test question, current input, or potential new input. The voting results column 808 may show the outcome of votes for determining whether the input was correctly mapped to an intent unit. In some examples, the voting results may be indicated by three boxes indicating the amount of voters who said “yes,” “no,” or were “unsure” as to whether the input was correctly mapped to the intent unit. The voting majority column 810 may identify whether a majority had come to a decision regarding whether the input was correctly mapped to the intent unit. The action column 812 may provide a recommended action for the user, or administrator to take.
For example, as shown in row 814, the input type 806 has been identified as a “potential new input.” Additionally, in the row 814, the voting results indicate that the voters, in this case three voters, all agreed that the potential new input was correctly mapped to the intent unit. While the boxes are illustrated as being ordered in the voting results column in order of “yes,” “no,” or “unsure” (from left to right), other variations may be presented. Additionally, the boxes may be color coordinated (e.g., “yes” box is green, “no” box is red, etc.) to visually illustrate how the voters cast their votes. In the row 814, because the voters all agreed that the potential new input was mapped to the correct intent unit, the action 812 suggested to the administrator is to add the new input and adjust the language model.
In another example, row 816, an input type may 806 may be a test question, and the voting results 808 may indicate that the three voters could not come to a majority as to whether the test question had correctly mapped to an appropriate intent unit. In a case where no human voters can agree, an action 812 may be to remove the test question because it may not be an appropriate or helpful question to train a dataset.
In another example, row 818 may have an action such as “adjust model.” This may occur in examples where the input type 806 is current input and the voting results 808 indicate that all three voters agree that the input was incorrectly mapped to the corresponding intent unit. In instances such as this, because the input type 806 is a current input, and/or the voters unanimously agree that the input was incorrectly mapped to an intent unit, the language model may require updates. In instances such as these, an administrator may need to perform further analysis of the language model to determine what errors caused the mistake in mapping.
In yet a further example, row 820 may have an action 812 such as “no action needed.” This may occur in examples where the input type 806 is a current input, and the voting results indicate that all three voters agree that the input was correctly mapped to the corresponding intent unit. In instances such as this, because the input type 806 is a current input, and/or the voters unanimously agree that the input was correctly mapped to an intent unit, no action needs to be taken.
Example Processes
The processes 900, 1000, and 1100 (as well as each process described herein) are illustrated as a logical flow graph, each operation of which represents a sequence of operations that can be implemented in hardware, software, or a combination thereof. In the context of software, the operations represent computer-readable instructions stored on one or more computer-readable storage media that, when executed by one or more processors, perform the recited operations. Generally, computer-readable instructions include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, and the like that perform particular functions or implement particular abstract data types. The order in which the operations are described is not intended to be construed as a limitation, and any number of the described operations can be combined in any order and/or in parallel to implement the process. Further, any number of the described operations may be modified or omitted.
At 904, user input may be received, for example, through the conversation user interface.
At 906, the user input may be processed to identify an intent of the user input. For example, an intent may be characterized as an intent unit. Additionally or alternatively, the processing may comprise processing the user input with one or more natural language processing techniques. Various embodiments contemplate that an intent unit may be associated with a language model for one or more of the natural language processing techniques. Additionally or alternatively, an intent unit may be associated with (i) an action to be performed at least partly by a virtual assistant, (ii) a pattern of components for triggering the intent unit, or (iii) combinations thereof.
At 908, a weighting may be applied to one or more risk factors. For example, a plurality of risk indicators may be identified and a weighting may be applied to each risk indicator generating a weighted risk indicators.
At 910, a measure of confidence that the intent unit is correctly identified for the user input may be determined. For example, the determining may be based at least in part on the presence of one or more risk indicators for the user input. Additionally or alternatively, the determining may be based at least in part on the weighted risk indicators.
At 912, a measure of confidence may be associated with the user input.
At 914, a health status of the intent unit may be determined where the health status may indicate a level of risk associated with the intent unit. For example, a health status of the intent unit may be determined based at least in part on one or more measures of confidence.
At 916, one or more intent units may be ranked with respect to each other. For example, an intent unit and another intent unit may be ranked based at least in part on the health status of the intent unit and a health status of the other intent unit. For example, a first intent unit may have a health status that indicates a relatively lower risk when compared to a second intent unit with a health status that indicates a relatively higher risk.
At 918, the health statuses may be presented. For example, the health statuses may be displayed to a user. One or more health statuses may be presented. All of the health statuses may be presented, for example, in ranked order. Various embodiments contemplate that only health statuses above or below a threshold will be presented. Various embodiments contemplate that only a set number of highest or lowest health statuses will be presented. Various embodiments contemplate that a user may use the rankings to select which health status and associated intent units and inputs to focus on. For example, a health status that indicates a relatively large number of hits and relatively large amount of risk may be selected to work on over a health status that indicates a lower number of hits and or a lower amount of risk.
At 920, the health status of the intent unit may be presented, for example, via an output device associated with an administrator.
At 922, a selection of the intent unit may be received to obtain feedback regarding the intent unit.
At 924, a feedback interface may be presented that enables a voter to provide feedback regarding matching of the user input to the intent unit.
At 926, feedback may be received for the voter regarding an accuracy of matching the user input to the intent unit. For example, the feedback may comprise a vote indicating whether or not the user input matches the intent unit.
At 928, the feedback may be evaluated to determine whether the feedback indicates that the matching of the user input to the intent unit is accurate. For example, if yes, at 930, a weight of a risk indicator may be reduced, for example, based at least in part on the determining that the feedback indicates that the matching of the user input to the intent unit is accurate. However, if no, then at 932, a weight of a risk indicator may be increased, for example, based at least in part on the determining that the feedback indicates that the matching of the user input to the intent unit is not accurate. However, various embodiments contemplate that based on how the implemented system is configured, at 930, the weight may be held steady or increased. Similarly, at 932, the weight may be held steady or decreased.
At 934, the weighting may be applied to the risk indicator.
At 936, the intent unit may be evaluated based at least in part on the feedback. For example, the evaluation my comprise presenting a feedback results interface that indicates at least one of a number of votes that are associated with an accurate matching of the user input to the intent unit or a number of votes that are associated with an inaccurate matching of the user input to the intent unit. Additionally or alternatively, a measure of confidence may be determined based at least in part on the presence and/or measure of the one or more weighted risk indicators.
At 1004, one or more risk factors may be identified to evaluate conversation data associated with one or more users. Various embodiments contemplate that the conversation data may represent at least one conversation. Various embodiments contemplate that the conversation is between a user and a virtual assistant, one or more users and one or more virtual assistants, two or more users, two or more virtual assistants, or combinations thereof. Various embodiments contemplate that the risk factors may include any and all risk indicators including, but not limited to, the following: user feedback from a user regarding an evaluation of at least a portion of the least one conversation; user feedback from an administrator regarding an evaluation of at least a portion of the at least one conversation; a tone of a user's voice during the at least one conversation; a gesture of a user during the at least one conversation; a facial expression of a user during the at least one conversation; a sensor signal obtained from monitoring user response; a message from a user about the at least one conversation; a confidence value determined for the at least one conversation from at least one of a probabilistic model or statistical model, or combinations thereof. Additionally or alternatively, various embodiments contemplate that the risk factors may indicate, but is not limited to, any of the following: whether or not the processing identifies an intent for the user input; whether or not the user input directly preceded other user input for which the natural language processing system failed to identify an intent; whether or not the user input is involved in a conversation in which the natural language processing system failed to identify an intent; whether or not the user input is one of multiple user inputs for which the natural language processing system identifies a same intent two or more times in a row; whether or not the user input is involved in a conversation in which the natural language processing system identifies a same intent two or more times in a row; whether or not the user input is involved in a conversation in which the natural language processing system identifies a same intent two or more times, or combinations thereof.
At 1006, the conversation data may be processed with a natural language processing system to identify an intent for the conversation data.
At 1008, a weighting may be applied to each risk factor.
At 1010, a confidence value may be determined for the conversation data based at least in part on the one or more risk factors. Various embodiments contemplate that the confidence value indicates a level of confidence that the intent is accurately identified for the conversation data. Additionally or alternatively, determining the confidence value may be based at least in part on one or more of the plurality of weighted risk factors.
At 1012, the confidence value may be utilized. For example, at 1014, it may be determined that multiple pieces of user input are each associated with a confidence value that is below a threshold amount. Various embodiments contemplate that the conversation data includes the multiple pieces of user input. Various embodiments contemplate that user characteristic includes a demographic characteristic of a user. Various embodiments contemplate that a user characteristic includes context that is used to interpret user input of the conversation data. Various embodiments contemplate that context includes at least one of a type of device that is used by a user to provide the user input, purchase history, content that has been viewed by the user, or combinations thereof.
At 1016, a correlation between a user characteristic and the multiple pieces of user input may be determined.
At 1018, the correlation may be presented, for example, via an output device.
At 1020, the confidence value may be utilized to, for example, determine whether an action associated with the intent should be performed.
At 1022, the confidence value may be utilized to, for example, determine a health status that indicates a level of risk associated with the intent.
At 1024, the intent may be ranked with other intents. For example, the ranking may be based at least in part on a respective health status of each of the intents.
At 1026, the ranks may be presented.
At 1028, the confidence value may be utilized to update a language model associated with the natural language processing system.
At 1104, for example, a feedback interface may be presented. Various embodiments contemplate that that the feedback interface may enable a voter to vote regarding matching a user input, for example, from conversation data, to an intent.
At 1106, feedback from the voter may be received. For example, the feedback may comprise a vote regarding the accuracy of matching the user input with the intent unit.
At 1108, a profile factor may be determined for the voter. For example, the profile factor may be based at least in part on a comparison of a previous number of votes from the voter to votes from a majority of other voters. For example, a first voter may have a history of providing votes that are consistent with a majority of votes for each voting opportunity. Here, the voter profile factor may be relatively high (or increased to be higher than a threshold). Additionally, or alternatively, the first voter may have a history of providing votes that are consistent with a minority. Here, the voter profile factor may be relatively low (or decreased to be lower than a threshold). Additionally or alternatively, the first voter may have a relatively recent history of voting with the majority or minority. For example, a predetermined number of historical votes, a predetermined time period of historical votes, a recent streak of votes consistent with the majority or minority, or combinations thereof may be used in the comparison. Various embodiments contemplate that a majority of voter may comprise a predetermined number of voters.
At 1110, a weight may be applied to the vote of the voter. For example, the weight may be based at least in part on the profile factor of the voter. Various embodiments contemplate that the weight applied to the vote may create a weighted vote.
At 1112, whether the feedback indicates that the matching is accurate may be determined.
At 1114, a weight may be adjusted and/or applied to a risk factor. For example, the weight may be adjusted or modified based at least in part on the determining whether the feedback indicates that that matching of the user input to the intent is accurate. Additionally or alternatively, the weight may be adjusted based at least in part on one or more weighted votes. Additionally or alternatively, the weight may be adjusted or applied to the risk factors based at least in part on a maturity of intent units associated with the natural language processing system, or an amount of user inputs for the conversation data, or a combination thereof. Additionally or alternatively, the weight may be adjusted or applied based at least in part on recent changes to the language model, underlying knowledge base, services of the system, among others, or combinations thereof. For example, a relatively mature intent unit may act relatively immature if the application of the language model or knowledge base (among others) changes.
Although embodiments have been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the disclosure is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described. Rather, the specific features and acts are disclosed herein as illustrative forms of implementing the embodiments.
This application is a continuation of and claims the benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/857,160, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,175,865, which claims the benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/849,541, filed Sep. 9, 2015, now abandoned, which claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/048,144, filed Sep. 9, 2014, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/049,982, filed Sep. 12, 2014, the contents of all are incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5278980 | Pedersen et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5418948 | Turtle | May 1995 | A |
| 5535120 | Chong et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5615112 | Liu Sheng et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5677835 | Carbonell et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5682539 | Conrad et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5727174 | Aparicio et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
| 6012053 | Pant et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6112177 | Cosatto et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6144938 | Surace et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6175829 | Li et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6282507 | Horiguchi et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6285978 | Bernth et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6353817 | Jacobs et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6388665 | Linnett et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6396951 | Grefenstette | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6401061 | Zieman | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6658627 | Gallup et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6661418 | McMillan et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6757362 | Cooper et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6826540 | Plantec et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
| 6829603 | Chai et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6834120 | LeClerc et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6987514 | Beresin et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
| 6999932 | Zhou | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7058902 | Iwema et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7076430 | Cosatto et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
| 7194483 | Mohan et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
| 7263493 | Provost et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
| 7337158 | Fratkina et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
| 7426697 | Holecek et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
| 7483829 | Murakami et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
| 7536413 | Mohan et al. | May 2009 | B1 |
| 7539656 | Fratkina et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
| 7548899 | Del Favero et al. | Jun 2009 | B1 |
| 7558792 | Bier | Jul 2009 | B2 |
| 7599831 | Ford | Oct 2009 | B2 |
| 7610382 | Siegel | Oct 2009 | B1 |
| 7711547 | Abir | May 2010 | B2 |
| 7739604 | Lyons et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
| 7797146 | Harless et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
| 7818183 | Schoenberg | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7912701 | Gray et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
| 7970663 | Ganz et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 8160979 | Evans | Apr 2012 | B1 |
| 8346563 | Hjelm et al. | Jan 2013 | B1 |
| 8352266 | Farmaner et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8401842 | Ginzburg et al. | Mar 2013 | B1 |
| 8424840 | Kratzer | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8433556 | Fraser et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8473420 | Bohus | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8510276 | Haiby et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 8519963 | Kocienda et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 8670979 | Gruber et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8677377 | Cheyer et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8731929 | Kennewick et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
| 8756326 | Elberse et al. | Jun 2014 | B1 |
| 8762152 | Bennett et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
| 8819003 | Anick et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
| 8930191 | Gruber et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
| 8942986 | Cheyer et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
| 8943094 | Brown et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
| 9117447 | Gruber et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
| 9202171 | Kuhn | Dec 2015 | B2 |
| 9424840 | Hart | Aug 2016 | B1 |
| 9501741 | Cheyer et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 20010000356 | Woods | Apr 2001 | A1 |
| 20010033298 | Slotznick | Oct 2001 | A1 |
| 20010044751 | Pugliese et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20010049688 | Fratkina et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20010053968 | Galitsky et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020008716 | Colburn et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020032591 | Mahaffy et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020123994 | Schabes et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020129031 | Lau et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020198885 | Streepy | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030004908 | Linthicum et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030041307 | Park | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030061029 | Shaket | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030088547 | Hammond | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030126089 | Fukuoka et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030126090 | Fukuoka et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030142829 | Avigni | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030212544 | Acero et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20040107088 | Budzinski | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040141013 | Alcazar et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040186705 | Morgan et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20050027694 | Sauermann | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050054381 | Lee et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050120276 | Kolawa et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20060004826 | Zartler et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060020466 | Cousineau et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060036430 | Hu | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060037076 | Roy | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060047632 | Zhang | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060067352 | John et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060074689 | Cosatto et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060074831 | Hyder et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060080107 | Hill et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060092978 | John et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060161414 | Carignano et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060206483 | Knepper et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060253427 | Wu | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20070043687 | Bodart et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070100790 | Cheyer et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070106670 | Yoakum et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070130112 | Lin | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070134631 | Hardy et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070156677 | Szabo | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070185702 | Harney et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070197296 | Lee | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070265533 | Tran | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070294229 | Au | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080005158 | Zartler et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080010268 | Liao et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080016040 | Jones et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080036756 | Gaos et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080091406 | Baldwin et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080096533 | Manfredi et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080133444 | Gao et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080162498 | Omoigui | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080222734 | Redlich et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080235604 | Eber | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080305815 | McDonough | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090006525 | Moore | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090030800 | Grois | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090063427 | Zuta et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090070103 | Beggelman et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090077488 | Ording | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090089100 | Nenov et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090119095 | Beggelman et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090119587 | Allen et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090157386 | Zhou | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090171923 | Nash et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090182702 | Miller | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090204677 | Michaelis et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090216691 | Borzestowski et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090225041 | Kida et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090227223 | Jenkins | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090228264 | Williams et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090235356 | Jensen et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090248399 | Au | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090271205 | Finn et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20100005122 | Jackson | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100030549 | Lee et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100050237 | Bokor et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100070448 | Omoigui | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100070871 | Liesche | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100153398 | Miller et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100169336 | Eckhoff-Hornback et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100226490 | Schultz et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100235808 | Dayan et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100281012 | Imig | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100312547 | Van Os et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110004841 | Gildred et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110071819 | Miller et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110078105 | Wallace | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110119196 | Ventura | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110179126 | Wetherell et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110213642 | Makar et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110288947 | Biran | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110301982 | Green et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110307245 | Hanneman et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120016678 | Gruber et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120022872 | Gruber et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120030553 | Delpha et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120041903 | Beilby et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120078891 | Brown et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120110473 | Tseng | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120117005 | Spivack | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120221502 | Jerram et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120245926 | Montyne et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120253825 | Di Fabbrizio | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120265528 | Gruber et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120284040 | Dupin | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120311541 | Bullard et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20130017523 | Barborak | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130031476 | Coin et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130046149 | Gettelman et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130152092 | Yadgar | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130204813 | Master et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130254139 | Lei | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130258040 | Kaytaz et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130262467 | Zhang et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130275875 | Gruber et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130283168 | Brown et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20140029734 | Kim et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140040748 | Lemay et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140047001 | Phillips et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140053102 | Lee et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140074454 | Brown et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140098948 | Kulkarni et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140115456 | White et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140164476 | Thomson | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140164508 | Lynch et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140181741 | Apacible et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140201675 | Joo et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140244266 | Brown et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140244712 | Walters et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140245140 | Brown et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140282109 | Wenger et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140297284 | Gruber et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140310005 | Brown et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140317502 | Brown et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140337048 | Brown et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140343924 | Brown et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140343928 | Brown et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140365223 | Brown et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20140365407 | Brown et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20150066817 | Slayton et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150185996 | Brown et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150186154 | Brown et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150186155 | Brown et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20150186156 | Brown et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
| 20160012186 | Zasowski et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160071517 | Beaver et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160110071 | Brown et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20170132220 | Brown et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170277993 | Beaver et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 103051669 | Apr 2013 | CN |
| 2011088053 | Jul 2011 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| “5 wearable electronic phones”, retrieved on Feb. 13, 2015 at <<http://limcorp.net/2009/5-wearable-electronic-phones>>, 2009, 12 pages. |
| “With Alme, Alaska Airlines soars”, Case Study, retrieved on Apr. 10, 2015 at <<http://www.nextit.com/media/downloads/Case-study-Alaska-Air.pdf>>, 3 pages. |
| Cassell, J., et al., “Embodied Conversational Agents,” MIT Press, 2000, pp. 272 and 275. |
| “Frost & Sullivan Commends Next IT for Leading the Virtual Agent Applications Industry in Competitive Strategy Innovation,” 2014, 5 pages. |
| Guzzoni, D., et al., “Modeling Human-Agent Interaction with Active Ontologies,” 2007 AAAI Spring Symposium, 8 pages. |
| Krahmer, E., et al., “Problem Spotting in Human-Machine Interaction,” IPO Center for Research on User-System Interaction, Sixth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Budapest, Hungary, 1999, 4 pages. |
| Langkilde, I., et al., “Automatic Prediction of Problematic Human-Computer Dialogues in How May I Help You?”, AT&T Labs Research, 1999, 5 pages. |
| “Meet Jenn, Your Virtual Assistant at alaskaair.com,” retrieved on Apr. 13, 2015 at <<http://www.alaskaair.com/content/about-us/site-info/ask-jenn.aspx>>, 1 page. |
| “SGT STAR Wins Intelligent Assistant Award,” PRWEB Online Visibility from Vocus, Sep. 24, 2014, 2 pages. |
| “Meet Julia—TAM Airlines′ most famous new hire,” Case Study, 2015, 2 pages. |
| “The Army's Robot Recruiter,” Transcript from New York Public Radio, retrieved on Jan. 20, 2015 at <<http://www.onthemedia.org/story/armys-robot-recruiter-aug/transcript>>, Aug. 8, 2014, 3 pages. |
| Walker, M., et al., “Learning to Predict Problematic Situations in a Spoken Dialogue System: Experiments with How May I Help You?”, AT&T Labs Research, NAACL 2000 Proceedings of the 1st North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics conference, Seattle, Washington, Apr. 29-May 4, 2000, 8 pages. |
| Wikipedia page “CALO”, retrieved on Nov. 15, 2017 at <<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CALO>>, 5 pages. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20190138190 A1 | May 2019 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62049982 | Sep 2014 | US | |
| 62048144 | Sep 2014 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 15857160 | Dec 2017 | US |
| Child | 16242639 | US | |
| Parent | 14849541 | Sep 2015 | US |
| Child | 15857160 | US |
