Litman, D. J., & Allen, J. F. (1990). Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In Cohen, P., Morgan, J., & Pollack, M. (Eds.), Intentions in communication, pp. 365-- 388. MIT Press.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....system first generated all possible interpretations and then filtered among them, making it vulnerable to a possible runtime explosion in a larger domain. Our system uses context first to decide which options to explore. 4. 4 Dialogue and Domain Plans Litman and Allen [Lit85, Lit86, LA87, LA90] extended Carberry s and Allen s work to better account for various dialogue phenomena. Although a dialogue s focus is on the domain, there seem to be several meta layers which help ensure robust communication. Essentially, Litman and Allen added a new layer to the plan recognition system, that ....

....Previous plan recognition systems had only accounted for domainlevel plans (as well as speech act level plans) Litman and Allen s system was able to account for a number of problem solving phenomena, including that of clarification subdialogues. For example, consider the following dialogue [LA90] teacher: OK the next thing you do is add one egg to the blender, to the shrimp in the blender. student: The whole egg teacher: Yeah, the whole egg. Not the shells. student: Gotcha. Done. The domain level plan here one of cooking. The student s first utterance, however is caused by ....

Diane J. Litman and James F. Allen. Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication, chapter 17, pages 365--388. MIT Press, 1990.

.... questions asked of the participants to the workshop is What is the evidence for the existence of intentions What types of intentions are useful to identify for communication The former part of the question has already been positively answered by many researchers, such as [GS86; GS90] LC91] LA90] the same answer emerges from tile abstracts submitted to the workshop, and I will therefore take it for granted. I will focus on the latter part of the question, and I will try to provide a.n answer by taking what seenis to me a necessary preliminary step, namely, by identifying the factors ....

....I will focus on the latter part of the question, and I will try to provide a.n answer by taking what seenis to me a necessary preliminary step, namely, by identifying the factors underlying tile speaker s comnunicative intentions. Some of these factors have been identified for example by [LA90; Po186] as the beliefs and intentions that the speaker (S for short, and referred to with feminine pronouns) believes the hearer (H for short, and referred to with masculine pronouns) has prior to the current utterance, and the new ones H will adopt, a.s a consequence of the utterance. The ....

Diane Litman and James Allen. Discourse Processing and Commonsense Plans. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, 1990.

....6. A intends each act in to play a role in his plan. The fact that agents have plans which they talk about, even though these plans are not actually plans to communicate, is an important distinction made by researchers who have sought to describe ways to do plan recognition. For instance, in [LA90] the authors de ne domain plans as plans which might be performed in a particular domain, and describe those plans in a STRIPS style formalism. The notion of agents having plans and collaborating with one another about them is also developed by Groz, Sidner, and others in a number of papers ....

Diane J. Litman and James F. Allen. Discourse Processing and Commonsense Plans, chapter 17, pages 365-388. In Cohen et al. [CMP90], 1990.

....Carberry s system rst generated all possible interpretations and then ltered among them, making it vulnerable to a possible runtime explosion in a larger domain. Our system uses context rst to decide which options to explore. 4. 4 Dialogue and Domain Plans Litman and Allen [Lit85, Lit86, LA87, LA90] extended Carberry s and Allen s work to better account for various dialogue phenomena. Although a dialogue s focus is on the domain, there seem to be several meta layers which help ensure robust communication. Essentially, Litman and Allen added a new layer to the plan recognition system, that ....

....Previous plan recognition systems had only accounted for domainlevel plans (as well as speech act level plans) Litman and Allen s system was able to account for a number of problem solving phenomena, including that of clari cation subdialogues. For example, consider the following dialogue [LA90] teacher: OK the next thing you do is add one egg to the blender, to the shrimp in the blender. student: The whole egg teacher: Yeah, the whole egg. Not the shells. student: Gotcha. Done. The domain level plan here one of cooking. The student s rst utterance, however is caused by ....

Diane J. Litman and James F. Allen. Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication, chapter 17, pages 365-388. MIT Press, 1990.

....complex plans, it only worked for utterances that talked directly about actions and goals in a domain. Other dialogue phenomena (such as correction and clarification subdialogues) were not addressed. Dialogue and Domain Plans Litman and Allen ( Litman, 1985; Litman, 1986; Litman and Allen, 1987; Litman and Allen, 1990]) extended Carberry s earlier work to better account for various dialogue phenomena. Although a dialogue s focus is on the domain, there seem to be several meta layers which help ensure robust communication. Essentially, Litman and Allen added a new layer to the plan recognition system, that of ....

....was able to account for a number of dialogue phenomena, including that of Litman and Allen actually called these discourse plans. In light of subsequent work, however, these are better characterized as meta level plans. clarification subdialogues. For example, consider the following dialogue ([Litman and Allen, 1990]) teacher: OK the next thing you do is add one egg to the blender, to the shrimp in the blender. student: The whole egg teacher: Yeah, the whole egg. Not the shells. student: Gotcha. Done. The domain level plan here one of cooking. The student s first utterance ( The whole egg ) however ....

Diane J. Litman and James F. Allen, "Discourse Processing and Commonsense Plans," In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication, pages 365--388. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

....that communicates must be able to reason about how another agent will behave, which may in turn depend on what he expects of the reasoner. It has sometimes been suggested that different levels of reasoning about discourse form problems to be dealt with separately. For instance, Litman and Allen [84] suggest that domain plans should be analysed at a separate level from discourse plans. The spirit of Grice s ideas on conversational implicature, though, seems to demand that all factors underlying an utterance be considered together in order to recognize the speaker s intention. A speaker s ....

Diane J. Litman and James F. Allen. Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In Phillip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication, pages 365--388. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

....be achieved, identifying subtasks to perform and selecting suitable parameters for them, allocating them to individual agents, and jointly assessing the results once agents have acted. Modeling this problem solving means recognizing the indirect role utterances play in achieving real world goals [Litman and Allen, 1990, Lambert and Carberry, 1991, Carberry and Lambert, 1999] and the explicitly collaborative stake participants have in problemsolving discourse as well as real world action [Grosz and Sidner, 1990, Lochbaum, 1998] 1) gets its coherence in part from the collaborative problem solving strategy A ....

Litman, D. J. and Allen, J. F. (1990). Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J., and Pollack, M. E., editors, Intentions in Communication, pages 365-- 388. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

....interpretation that apply to these discourses are neutral with respect to sentence mood, instead relying on other compositional and lexical semantic features. In contrast, it would be hard to achieve such a uniform analysis with with plan recognition approaches (e.g. Grosz and Sidner 1986, 1990, Litman and Allen 1990, Lochbaum 1998) where interpreting the current utterance utilises only the goals of the prior utterances, rather than their compositional and lexical semantics directly. This is because the goals of indicatives (typically, that the interpreter believe the proposition) are radically di erent from ....

....0 ) capture the implicatures of (1.1a) and (1.1c) in a uniform way, but also, in spite of the di erent sentence moods, the way in which these logical forms are constructed is uniform. This contrasts with the plan recognition approach to discourse interpretation (e.g. Grosz and Sidner 1990, Litman and Allen 1990). These theories reason about the way new information updates the meaning of the discourse by reasoning about how the communicative intention of the current utterance relates to the communicative intentions of the prior utterances. The communicative intentions that are conventionally associated ....

Litman, D. and J. Allen [1990] Discourse Processing and Commonsense Plans, in P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. Pollack (eds.) Intentions in Communication, pp.365-388, mit Press.

....(Charniak, 1986) p.337. Charniak s system used rules triggered by evidence in a story, to make connections between story elements that are not expressed explicitly and thereby to answer questions about the story. In the 1980 s, work on task related dialogues by Allen and Perrault (1982) Litman and Allen (1990) and others, showed how systematic c 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. revisions.tex; 26 03 2001; 17:05; p.1 2 Claire Gardent and Bonnie Webber inference on a hearer s part about a speaker s beliefs and goals could be used in understanding questions (often ....

....3 are incompatible with world knowledge. Finally, speech act ambiguity refers to the alternative possible dialog functions that an utterance can have. As mentioned earlier, plan based inference techniques can help deal with this problem (Allen and Perrault, 1982; Chu Carroll and Carberry, 1994; Litman and Allen, 1990; Lambert and Carberry, 1999) and statistical dialogue modelling may prove a help here as well (Stolcke et al. 2000) In this paper, we concentrate on how inference can be used to resolve ambiguities involving referring expressions in discourse: speci cally, we show that the method initiated in ....

Litman, D. and J. Allen: 1990, `Discourse Processing and Commonsense Plans'. In: P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack (eds.): Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 365-388.

....as highly structured discourse is compelling. Linguistically, we would like to study how our way of handling discourse structure compares with existing discourse models like [10] Another related line of research is to view the problem of discourse understanding as a plan recognition problem [17], 6] 21] The proof planner we described certainly generates expectations and tries to match them later. But proof recognition goes hand in hand with constructive planning. The relation between proof construction and plan recognition has to be worked out in greater detail. 5 CONCLUSION We ....

D.J. Litman and J.F. Allen. Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M.E. Pollack, eds., Intentions in communication, p. 365-388. MIT Press, 1990.

....is typically not supported. Rather, the structured dialogue model prompts the user for a specific ordering of the information as shown in Figure 1. 3. RICHER DIALOGUE MODELS There are other alternatives to the structured dialogue paradigm. Much work has been done on plan based models (e.g. [9, 8]) and rational agency theories (e.g. 4, 13] However, these approaches take the opposite approach from structured dialogues. Such systems aim to understand anything that the user might say about the domain. As such, they require a large amount of linguistic and domain information along with ....

D. Litman and J. Allan. Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication, SDF Benchmark Series, pages 365--388. MIT Press, 1990.

....of a task (Young, 1993; Kneser and Steinbiss, 1993) Dialogue analysis segments a dialogue into smaller units and labels the functionality of the units in their contexts. While knowledge based approaches are widely and successfully used in dialogue structure analysis (Grosz and Sidner, 1986; Litman and Allen, 1990), they require intensive human effort to define linguistic structures and develop grammars to detect the structures. Woszczyna and Waibel, 1994) used a statistical approach for dialogue analysis. They modeled dialogue structure with a 6 state Hidden Markov Model. Each state represents a speech ....

Litman, Diane J. and James F. Allen. 1990. Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In Intentions in Communications.

....than whether it is an acceptable refashioning. Note that this view of collaboration differs from others proposed in the computational linguistics literature, where agents are assumed to monotonically build up the plan with no revisions allowed of accepted refashionings (Grosz and Sidner, 1990; Litman and Allan, 1990; Chu Carroll and Carberry, 1994) Returning to our train example, the plan that the system and user are collaborating upon is a plant that identifies a train that the system knows exists and that the user finds acceptable. Each additional criteria that the user adds to the plan is a contribution ....

Litman, Diane J. and James F. Allan. 1990. Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication, SDF Benchmark Series. MIT Press, pages 365--388.

....based on the realization that statements can do more than just make assertions about the world. The notion of speech acts was first introduced by Austin [5] Searle [23] and Grice [11] provide further philosophical discussion of the problem. Computational approaches have been proposed in [2] 9] [19], 20] and [21] but these theories have not been tested within an integrated dialog processing system. 2.2. Our research emphasis These previous research efforts provide important results about isolated factors in NL dialog processing, but they do not study the problem of integrating various ....

D.J. Litman and J.F. Allen. Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M.E. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication, pages 365--388. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1990.

.... that hold, and then exploiting these cognitively motivated but discourse level axioms to account for the constraints on anaphora observed in (1) and (2) 2 Dialogue and Mental States Many researchers have emphasised cognitive modelling in analysing dialogue (e.g. Grosz and Sidner 1986, 1990, Litman and Allen 1990, Hobbs et al. 1993, Sperber and Wilson 1986) In these theories, the compositional semantics of an utterance is in1 corporated as a new belief, and this leads to further new beliefs or changes to old ones. These updates are viewed as pragmatic e ects. So interpretation is belief revision, and ....

Litman, D. and J. Allen [1990] Discourse Processing and Commonsense Plans, in P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. Pollack (eds.) Intentions in Communication, pp.365-388, mit Press.

....point of view: a) intentions related to the task (refers to why the speakers participate in dialogue: seeking information, teaching, b) communicative intentions. These aspects can be handled by independent agents, because they correspond to different levels of interpretation as shown in [Litman and Allen 1990; Moore and Pollack 1992; Lambert and Carberry 1992] Maintaining a cooperative dialogue coherent and natural requires that these agents collaborate. The dialogue model we propose centralises the results computed by the agents, all of whom have access to information concerning the current ....

....similar to these structures, except the precise definition of the kinds of relations it allows to recognise. The difference we introduce also concerns the growth of this tree. We do not postulate that the user will always adopt a descendant strategy to pose his problem. Most dialogue systems [Litman and Allen 1990; Pollack 1990] assume that the user gives his main goal in his first utterance. This choice is mainly justified by the fact that a novice user proceeds so [Carberry 1990] But we consider that a user who will often use a system will become expert, and thus will change his strategy. Dialogues will ....

Diane J. Litman and James F. Allen, Discourse processing and commonsense plans, Intentions in communication, ch.17, MIT press, 1990.

....This is its new communicative goal [34] Lochbaum s model of collaborative planning has been implemented in the COLLAGEN system, which uses an artificial discourse language. 4.2 Levels of plans Different researchers have posited various kinds and levels of discourse plans. Allen and Litman [2] distinguish between discourse intentions, discourse plans, and domain plans. A domain plan is task knowledge about a specific domain, for instance knowledge about how to fix a car. A discourse intention is a state of mind that one can describe in terms of domain plans, for instance, She will ....

J. Allen and D. Litman. Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, 1990.

....Here we describe some work that extends the analysis towards dealing with dialogue phenomena. 4. 1 Dialogue Function as Action Litman and Allen extend Allen and Perrault s work to include dialogues rather than just single utterances, and to have a hierarchy of plans rather than just a single plan [68, 69]. They describe two different types of plans: domain plans and discourse plans. Domain plans are those used to perform a cooperative task, while discourse plans, such as clarification and correction, are task independent plans which are concerned with using the discourse to further the goals of ....

Diane J. Litman and James F. Allen. Discourse processing and common sense plans. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, 1990.

No context found.

Litman, Diane J. and James F. Allen. 1990. Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In Intentions in Communications.

No context found.

Litman, D. J., & Allen, J. F. (1990). Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In Cohen, P., Morgan, J., & Pollack, M. (Eds.), Intentions in communication, pp. 365-- 388. MIT Press.

No context found.

D.J. Litman, J.F. Allen, Discourse processing and commonsense plans, in: Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990, pp. 365--388.

No context found.

Diane J. Litman and James F. Allen. Discourse processing and commonsense plans. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack, editors, Intentions in communication, chapter 17, pages 417--444. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

No context found.

Diane Litman and James Allen. Discourse Processing and Commonsense Plans. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, 1990.

No context found.

Diane J. Litman and James F. Allen, \Discourse Processing and Commonsense Plans," In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication, pages 365-388. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

No context found.

D. J. Litman and J. F. Allen. Discourse pro- cessing and commonsense plans. In P. 1. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack, editors, In- tentions in Communication. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1989.

First 50 documents  Next 50

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