Notice

Loebner Prize

Loebner Prize @ Bletchley Park

Important Dates

Entry Submission Deadline: Friday 1st July 2016

Announcement of Finalists: Monday 1st August 2016   Thursday 4th August 2016 (Apologies for the delay)

Finals Day:  Loebner Prize 2016 Finals on Saturday 17 September 2016 at Bletchley Park

Quick Links

Introduction

The Loebner Prize is the oldest Turing Test contest, started in 1991 by Hugh Loebner and the Cambridge Centre for Behavioural studies. Since then, a number of institutions across the globe have hosted the competition including recently, the Universities of Reading, Exeter and Ulster. From 2014, the contest will be run under the aegis of the AISB, the world’s first AI society (founded 1964) at Bletchley Park where Alan Turing worked as a code-breaker during World War 2.

The Contest

The 2015 contest was run in a similar way to those in previous years. The contest consists of 4 rounds where in each round, the 4 judges will each interact with two entities using a computer terminal. One of these entities will be a human ‘confederate’ and the other an AI system. After 25 minutes of questioning the judge must decide entity is the human and which is the AI. If a system can fool half the judges that it is human under these conditions, a Silver Medal and $25,000 will be awarded to the creator of that AI system. In the event that this doesn't happen, prizes will be awarded to the creators of the AI system as follows in accordance with judges’ ranked scores:

1st place - a bronze medal and $4000
2nd place - $1500
3rd place - $1000
4th place - $500

For more detailed information about the contest, including its history, please click here.

2016 Selection Results

The selection team received 16 entries for the 2016 contest and the standard selection process was run over 20 questions as described in the section below.  The full table of results are shown below. There is a clear top placed entry, but below this the scoring were particularly tight so congratulations to Mitsuku, Tutor, rose and Arckon who are this year's finalists.  Commiserations to the rest, particularly Katie who was very close to selection.  Questions and transcripts to follow.

Entry Name
Score (/100)
Mitsuku
90
Tutor
78.33333
rose
77.5
Arckon
77.5
Katie
76.66667
Izar
72.5
Alice
64.16667
Isabelle
62.5
Talk2Me
62.5
Masha
59.16667
Uberbot
57.5
Johnny
40
kuhoo
37.5
Acuman
0
Madame Zanetta
0
Nicole
0

 

 2016 Selection Process

The top four entries from the pool of entries that conform to the entry specifications will be selected as follows. Each entry will be provided with a set of 20 questions in English in a similar format to previous competitions, with at least 2 Winograd style questions. The responses from each of the AI systems will be recorded for this question set and then assessed for how human their responses are. The top 4 entries from this process will be entered into the finals of the competition at Bletchley Park.

Entry:  Entries to the competition can be submitted electronically or by post and must conform to the following criteria to be accepted for the selection process:

1. Entries must work with the published Loebner Prize Protocol

2. Entries must work with the selection machines (Windows 7 Core i7 PC with min 4GB RAM). Alternatively, entrants may make arrangements to ship their own machine for testing in consultation with the selection committee.

3. Entries submitted as software should be submitted as a self-contained installation program and should be accompanied by instructions for installation.  It is important that entries are thoroughly tested before submission as only limited attempts will be made to resolve non-working installations in consultation with the entrant.

4. Entries should not try and access the internet.  The selection machines will be isolated from the internet.

5. Entries must be received (either electronically or by mail) by 5pm BST on the submission deadline of the 1st July 2016

6. By submitting an entry to the Loebner Prize, the authors consent to the posting of the entry's name, selection score and transcript on the AISB website following the selection process. 

Exclusion: Entries that do not conform to the LPP, that cannot be installed or are found to contain viruses, malware or other harmful software will be excluded from the competition.

Submission:  As in previous years, submission for selection will be possible by post (address below) or through the University of Exeter dropbox (details below). 

Electronic Submission:  Navigate to the URL given below and follow the instructions using the following information in the 'To' box:

Their Name: Ed Keedwell

Their E-Mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

All electronic entries should be accompanied by an e-mail to the above address detailing the Author's Name and Contact Details, Botname and Installation Instructions. Please note that there is a limit of 1080MB on submissions via this route, if your submission is larger than this, please submit by post.

URL: https://as.exeter.ac.uk/utils/dropbox/

Postal Submission: Please send postal entries to the address shown below.  Entries must be received by the contest deadline to be counted.

Andrew Martin
Tungsten Centre for Intelligent Data Analytics
Saint James' Hall Block 1/B
Goldsmiths
University of London
New Cross
London
SE14 6NW

The contest management’s decision on selection is final.

Venue Address

Bletchley Park, Sherwood Drive, Bletchley, MK3 6DS, United Kingdom

 


 

2015 Result

The chatbot Rose won the 2015 Loebner Prize.  The prize was executed over 4 rounds and was streamed live by the BBC.  A full description of events will follow, below is the final outcome of the contest by bot name and mean rank (lower is better).

1st Rose - 1.5

2nd Mitsuku - 2.0

=3rd Izar - 3.25

=3rd Lisa - 3.25

2015 Selection Results

The prize received 16 entries this year, with 15 able to be executed.  They were tested using the same scoring system as in 2014 with the following set of questions.  Transcripts will be added to the leaderboard in due course.  Congratulations to the four finalists and commiserations to the rest.

Entry Score
Mitsuku                                 83.33%     
Lisa 80.00%
Izar 76.67%
Rose 75.00%
Tutor 73.33%
Arckon 70.83%
Aidan 65.83%
Talk2Me 65.83%
Alice 64.17%
Uberbot 64.17%
Columbina 60.83%
Synthetic Life (Version B) 53.33%
Robots without Borders 45.83%
Johnny 45.00%
Cyrabot 26.67%

 

Questions

1.Hi, I'm Andrew. Who are you?

2.How are you today?

3.Are you a human?

4.Can you answer this question?

5.Do you like tea?

6.If a bed doesn't fit in a room because it's too big, what is too big?

7.If Alex lent money to Joe because they were broke, who needed the money?

8.Should Greece leave the Euro?

9.How many words are in this question?

10.What colour is the sea?

11.How many presidents of the US were called Bush?

12.What would you like to drink?

13.Will you please tell me the length of your hair?

14.What would you say if I gave you a box of chocolates?

15.Do you play Chess?

16.How do you think it's going?

17.What was my first question?

18.Did you see the Turing film?

19.Why not?

20.Are you on Twitter?

Queries

If you have any queries regarding the contest, please e-mail Dr Ed Keedwell on This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  

Contest Management 

The contest is managed on behalf of the AISB by Dr Ed Keedwell, Dr Nir Oren, Dr Bertie Müller, Andrew Martin and Janet Gibbs in conjunction with Dr David Levy and Dr Hugh Loebner.


2014 Contest Archive

Loebner Prize Selection Process

There were 20 entries to this year’s Loebner Prize Contest. Unfortunately, one entry was excluded due to it not being able to provide answers to the questions in reasonable time (no response was received  after 1 minute or more).  This leaves 19 entries to this year’s contest, from which the final four are selected. 

Method

Each entry was asked the same 20 questions, via the Loebner Prize Protocol.  A generous amount of time was provided for answers before moving onto the next question, but in practice all bots responded with a second or two of the last keystroke.  The questions posed to each bot are shown in the transcripts available below in the results table. These questions vary in difficulty and are designed to test memory, reasoning, general knowledge and personality.

Scoring

The response to each question was assessed for 3 characteristics, each of which is assigned, 0,1 or 2 points depending on the extent to which it meets the criterion. 

0 = This criterion is not met at all by the response.

1= This criterion is partially met by the response.

2=This criterion is fully met by the response.

The criteria were:

Relevance

Is the response relevant to the question being posed?  Please note that this is separate from correctness (see below). 

e.g. if the question is ‘Which city did I visit?’ and the answer is ‘I don’t like to travel very much’ , the entity has identified travel as part of the sentence even though the answer is not correct in this context and so the response would be adjudged to be relevant if not correct.

Correctness

Is the response correct, either factually, or in the character of the entity?  In the case of factual questions the correct answer is being sought.  In the case of more subjective questions, a plausible answer is being sought.

e.g. if the question is ‘What is your name?’ and the response is ‘I don’t know’, then the response would be scored poorly because it is not feasible that an entity would not know its name.  In contrast, if the question is ‘Which drink do you prefer, coffee, tea or hot chocolate’ and the response is ‘I don’t have a preference as I don’t like hot drinks’ this would be judged as correct as it’s a valid subjective opinion.

Plausibility & Clarity of Expression/Grammar

Is the response grammatically correct or correct in the context of the character of the entity?  This criterion penalises responses where the grammar impedes an understanding of the content of the response.  This often occurs where entries repeat parts of the question as an element of the response.  Please note that this criterion is not looking for perfect grammar, just that the response is intelligible and in character.  Most entries did pretty well in this criterion.

Results 2014

Scores are expressed as a percentage of the maximum score of 120 for all 20 questions.  Transcripts of each conversation can be accessed by clicking on the name of each entry.

Rose

89.17%

Izar

88.33%

Mitsuku

88.33%

Uberbot

81.67%

Tutor

80.83%

The Professor

76.67%

Nicole

70.83%

Talk2Me

69.17%

ChipVivant

68.33%

Aidan

65%

Isabelle

61.67%

Zoe

60%

Alice2.0

60.00%

Arckon

59.17%

Lisa

55.00%

8pla.net

46.67%

Johnny

46.67%

Trollbot

37.50%

Masha

35%

 

    

The top 4 selected for the finals are therefore Rose, Izar, Mitsuku and Uberbot.  Congratulations to those entries and commiserations to the rest..

 The top 4 entrants in detail:

'Rose' - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

'Izar' - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

'Mitsuku' - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

'Uberbot' - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

The Loebner Prize 2014 Organising Committee

Contest Finals

Place: Bletchley Park

Address: The Mansion, Bletchley Park, Milton Keynes, MK3 6EB

Date: Saturday 15th November 2014

 After 2 hours of judging at Bletchley Park, 'Rose' by Bruce Wilcox was declared the winner of the Loebner Prize 2014, held in conjunction with the AISB.  The event was well attended, filmed live by Sky News and the special guest judge was revealed to be none other than television presenter and broadcaster James May.  Bruce will receive a cheque for $4000 and a bronze medal.  The ranks were as follows:

Rose - Rank 1 ($4000 & Bronze Medal)

Izar - Rank 2.25 ($1500)

Uberbot - Rank 3.25 ($1000)

Mitsuku - Rank 3.5 ($500)

Although the judges were unanimous in their view of Rose as the best entry, none of the entries fooled the judges, meaning that the Silver Medal and $25,000 dollar prize are still to be won.

The contest management would like to thank everyone involved in the organisation of the contest including the judges & confederates (listed below), Claire Urwin and Katherine Lynch of Bletchley Park and Paul Sant and Ray of the University of Bedfordshire.

Judges

Dr Ian Hocking, Writer  & Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Christ Church College, Canterbury 

Dr Ghita Kouadri-Mostefaoui, Lecturer in Computer Science and Technology, University of Bedfordshire

Mr James May, Television Presenter and Broadcaster

Dr Paul Sant, Dean of UCMK, University of Bedfordshire

Confederates

Yasemin Erden

John Gilmour

Daniel Hirschmann

Ariadne Tampion

Press and Media

- The day was filmed for Sky News, both for their standard news broadcast and for their DigitalView program (Turing piece from approximately 15:20).

- One of the judges, Dr Ian Hocking, has written a blog about his experiences here.