You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Many conversational agents in the market today follow a standard bot development framework which requires training intent classifiers to recognize user input. The need to create a proper set of training examples is often the bottleneck in the development process. In many occasions agent developers have access to historical chat logs that can provide a good quantity as well as coverage of training examples. However, the cost of labeling them with tens to hundreds of intents often prohibits taking full advantage of these chat logs. In this paper, we present a framework called (SLP) for bootstrapping intents from existing chat logs using weak supervision. The framework reduces hours to days of labeling effort down to minutes of work by using a search engine to find examples, then relies on a data programming approach to automatically expand the labels. We report on a user study that shows positive user feedback for this new approach to build conversational agents, and demonstrates the effectiveness of using data programming for auto-labeling. While the system is developed for training conversational agents, the framework has broader application in significantly reducing labeling effort for training text classifiers.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: This paper analyses alternative techniques for deploying low-cost human resources for data acquisition for classifier induction in domains exhibiting extreme class imbalance - where traditional labeling strategies, such as active learning, can be ineffective. Consider the problem of building classifiers to help brands control the content adjacent to their on-line advertisements. Although frequent enough to worry advertisers, objectionable categories are rare in the distribution of impressions encountered by most on-line advertisers - so rare that traditional sampling techniques do not find enough positive examples to train effective models. An alternative way to deploy human resources for training-data acquisition is to have them "guide" the learning by searching explicitly for training examples of each class. We show that under extreme skew, even basic techniques for guided learning completely dominate smart (active) strategies for applying human resources to select cases for labeling. Therefore, it is critical to consider the relative cost of search versus labeling, and we demonstrate the tradeoffs for different relative costs. We show that in cost skew settings where the choice between search and active labeling is equivocal, a hybrid strategy can combine the benefits.
The idea of using search to explicitly acquire training examples is relevant to guided learning [1] , an approach to reduce labeling effort under skewed classes, where the search approach is proved to be superior over labeling from uniform sampling and active learning. This is critical for the use case of bootstrapping conversational agents, as intents are fine-grained concepts and usually highly skewed in chat logs. We note that the same search interface can be used for guided learning, but our approach differs in that it takes the user's search queries to automatically expand the labeled set, and thus requires minimum labeling effort from the user. A contribution of our user study is to empirically compare the effectiveness of guided learning and our SLP framework.