|dc.description.abstract||From a system developer's perspective, designing a spoken dialogue system can be a time-consuming and difficult process. A developer may spend a lot of time anticipating how a potential user might interact with the system and then deciding on the most appropriate system response. These decisions are encoded in a dialogue strategy, essentially a mapping between anticipated user inputs and appropriate system outputs.
To reduce the time and effort associated with developing a dialogue strategy, recent work has concentrated on modelling the development of a dialogue strategy as a sequential decision problem. Using this model, reinforcement learning algorithms have been employed to generate dialogue strategies automatically. These algorithms learn strategies by interacting with simulated users. Some progress has been made with this method but a number of important challenges remain. For instance, relatively little success has been achieved with the large state representations that are typical of real-life systems. Another crucial issue is the time and effort associated with the creation of simulated users.
In this thesis, I propose an alternative to existing reinforcement learning methods of dialogue strategy development. More specifically, I explore how XCS, an evolutionary reinforcement learning algorithm, can be used to find dialogue strategies that cover large state spaces. Furthermore, I suggest that hand-coded simulated users are sufficient for the learning of useful dialogue strategies. I argue that the use of evolutionary reinforcement learning and hand-coded simulated users is an effective approach to the rapid development of spoken dialogue strategies.
Finally, I substantiate this claim by evaluating a learned strategy with real users. Both the learned strategy and a state-of-the-art hand-coded strategy were integrated into an end-to-end spoken dialogue system. The dialogue system allowed real users to make flight enquiries using a live database for an Edinburgh-based airline. The performance of the learned and hand-coded strategies were compared. The evaluation results show that the learned strategy performs as well as the hand-coded one (81% and 77% task completion respectively) but takes much less time to design (two days instead of two weeks). Moreover, the learned strategy compares favourably with previous user evaluations of learned strategies.||en