C. Matheson, M. Poesio, and D. Traum. Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In Proceedings of the First Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2000.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....results. Updating the content of the hearer s belief structure however, is a prerequisite for corrections and repair of ungrounded syntactic material. That the grounding state of an utterance is part of the recipient s information state on the current dialogue situation is also argued for in [20]. Meaning. The goal of any syntactic analysis is to achieve a representation of the meaning for an utterance. There are many sources for semantic ambiguity that can eventually render the meaning unclear. In a given dialogue situation, the principles of rational interaction such as Grice s maxims ....

Colin Matheson, Massimo Poesio, and David Traum. Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In In Proceedings of NAACL 2000.

....grounding [1] As [2] point out, participants in a conversation attempt to minimize the effort expended in grounding. Thus, interlocutors do not always convey all the information at their disposal; sometimes it takes less effort to produce an incomplete utterance that can be repaired if needs be. [3] has proposed a computational approach to grounding where the status of contributions as provisional or shared is part of the dialogue system s representation of the information state of the conversation. Conversational actions can trigger updates that register provisional information as shared. ....

....possible. According to some previous studies, length of pause between UUs is in between 0.4 to 1 sec [18, 19] Thus, time out for judgment is 1 sec after the end of the UU. If the agent does not have evidence then, the UU remains ungrounded. This model is based on the information state approach [3], with update rules that revise the state of the conversation based on the inputs the system receives. In our case, however, the inputs are sampled continuously, include the nonverbal state, and only some require updates. Other inputs indicate that the last utterance is still pending, and allow ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Matheson, C., M. Poesio, and D. Traum. Modelling Grounding and Discourse Obligations Using Update Rules. in 1st Annual Meeting of the North American Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL2000). 2000.

....and investigating using dialogue moves such as WRONG ANSWER and NEAR MISS in our system. We can build upon previous TRINDI systems that have implemented a large set of update rules for low level communication management and simple dialogue planning. Different TRINDI systems such as EDIS (Matheson, Poesio, Traum 2000) and Godis (Larsson et al. 2000) have chosen to focus on different concerns. EDIS has a comprehensive mechanism for handling low level communication management using the notion of obligations. Godis focuses more on higher level dialogue planning. However, EDIS and Godis work on very simple ....

Matheson, C.; Poesio, M.; and Traum, D. 2000. Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules.

....discourse obligations, typically to respond to the other conversant s last utterance. Obligations may act as a stack during clarification subdialogues, or short term interruptions, but this stack never becomes very large. This is a richer discourse model than found in most systems (although see [12] for a model of similar richness) 2.2 Abstract Problem Solving Model The core modules of the conversational agent, the IM, BA and GM, use general models of collaborative problem solving, but these models remain at an abstract level, common to all practical dialogues. This model is formalized as ....

C. Matheson, M. Poesio, and D. Traum. Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In Proc. NAACL-2000, 2000.

....A number of systems are currently being developed using the TrindiKit. We will look at two of them in some detail: GoDiS, developed at Gothenburg University (Bohlin et al. 1999a) which uses an extension of the information state theory used as an example in Section 2, and the EDIS system (Matheson et al. 2000), developed at University of Edinburgh uses a notion of information state based on (Poesio Traum, 1998) More details of these and other TrindiKit systems can be found in (Bos et al. 2000) 4.1 GoDiS GoDiS is an experimental dialogue system built using the TrindiKit. It uses fairly simple ....

....and there are lexicon resources for both English and Swedish. GoDiS is also being used in teaching and student projects, including adaptations to domains such as cinema ticket booking, handheld computer agenda, and mobile phone interface. The TRINDI DME toolkit 13 4. 2 EDIS The EDIS system (Matheson et al. 2000), uses a notion of information state based on (Poesio Traum, 1997; Poesio Traum, 1998) using the record representation used for coding information states in (Cooper et al. 1999; Poesio et al. 1999) The informational components consist of a common ground part, a semi public part, and a ....

Matheson, Colin, Poesio, Massimo, & Traum, David. 2000. Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In: Proceedings of the rst conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics.

No context found.

C. Matheson, M. Poesio, and D. Traum. Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In Proceedings of the First Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2000.

No context found.

C. Matheson, M. Poesio, and D. Traum. Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2000.

No context found.

C. Matheson, M. Poesio, and D. Traum. Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In Proceedings of the First Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2000.

....topic and rhetorical structure of an ongoing conversation, it is also added to the social fabric linking agents, which is not part of any individual conversation. This includes social commitments both obligations to act or restrictions on action, as well as commitments to factual information [34, 21]. The negotiation layer will be described in the next section. More details on these layers, with a focus on how the acts can be realized using verbal and non verbal means, can be found in [36] We focus here on the aspects most central to negotiation: social commitments and grounding. 3.1 ....

C. Matheson, M. Poesio, and D. Traum. Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2000.

....multiple (parts of) dialogue acts, and it may take several communications (sometimes split into multiple modalities) to realize some dialogue acts. As a starting point, we use the dialogue layers developed in the TRAINS and EDIS dialogue systems [Traum and Hinkelman, 1992; Poesio and Traum, 1998; Matheson et al. 2000] . These included layers for turn taking, grounding, core speech acts, and argumentation acts (later termed forward and backward looking acts [Discourse Resource Initiative, 1997] While not fully implemented within natural language dialogue systems, there has also been some other work on other ....

Colin Matheson, Massimo Poesio, and David Traum. Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In Proceedings of the First Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2000.

No context found.

Colin Matheson, David Traum, and Massimo Poesio. 2000. Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. To appear in Proceedings of NAACL 2000, Seattle, April 2000.

No context found.

Colin Matheson, David Traum, and Massimo Poesio. 2000. Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. To appear in Proceedings of NAACL 2000, Seattle, April 2000.

....and nally the CSC attribute, which describes the particular scenario that the IS as a whole represents. It should be noted that the IS in Figure 1 is common to all the dialogue participants; this 2 Note that we are not attempting to model the process of grounding here; see [CS] PT98] MPT00] for relevant work. 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 IS: 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 PRIVATE: BEL: f. g G: 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 CSC: OBL: DH: 2 6 4 DA: f . g LM: f . g ....

....have in the discourse; for example, that the content of an assertion counts as shared belief or that a question should be considered as resolved for the remainder of the conversation. 4 2. 4 Intentional Structure (INT) The rst thing to note about our use of INT in comparison, for instance, to [MPT00] is that we are not dealing with private intentions which, in the case of the latter paper, would be represented here by the path IS.INT. 3 Rather, as we have noted, we are dealing with the hearer s reconstruction of the intentions behind the speaker s actions, and representing these in ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Colin Matheson, Massimo Poesio, and David Traum. Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In Proceedings of NAACL 2000, May 2000.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC