> http://www.meta-guide.com/home/bibliography/google-scholar/classifier-dialog-systems-2011
I looked at 365x academic papers from 2011 about dialog systems mentioning “classifier” (above).
> http://www.meta-guide.com/home/machine-learning/classifiers-in-dialog-systems
From those 2011 papers, I manually extracted some 122x classifier terms, or “types” of classifier (above). I then scored those classifier types for “popularity” against the past 10 years of papers in Google Scholar (above).
> http://www.meta-guide.com/home/machine-learning/classification-algorithms-in-dialog-systems
Then I took the whole “Category:Classification_algorithms” from Wikipedia (circa 125x) and scored those for popularity against the past 10 years of papers in Google Scholar (above).
> http://www.meta-guide.com/home/machine-learning/best-dialog-system-classifiers
Looking at the top dozen from both lists, I created a new Meta Guide webpage, “Best Dialog System Classifiers” (above).
= = =
It is still not clear to me whether or not all or most grammar based (grammar parsing) dialog systems (grammar agents) necessarily require machine learning and/or classifiers in order to generate natural language responses ?!?
What is more clear to me is that I now suspect that the “learning classifiers” create the so-called “language model” that the dialog system uses to “map” replies….
For instance, three forms of feature may be incorporated into the classifier: part-of-speech (POS) tags, lexical features, and syntactic properties.
The classification function can be defined in several ways: a multi-nomial naive Bayes classifier, a n-gram based classifier, a classifier based on grammatical inference techniques, or a classifier based on neural networks.
Basically, classifiers may be statistical or rule-based.