Susan McRoy and Graeme Hirst. Abductive explanation of dialogue misunderstandings. In Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), Utrect, 1993.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... Hirst One notable exception to the principle that most AI systems can t reason about their language is found in work by McRoy and Hirst. Their goal is to develop a unified theory of discourse which can be utilized by an implemented system to detect and resolve communication misunderstandings [McRoy and Hirst, 1993; McRoy, 1995] Their system uses default logic for utterance generation and abductive inference algorithms to handle interpretation and revision of those interpretations as necessary over the entire dialogue. A key approach in this work is one which we deny, namely, that legacy systems will have ....

Susan McRoy and Graeme Hirst. Abductive explanation of dialogue misunderstandings. In Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), Utrect, 1993.

.... reading: Heeman and Hirst, 1995] Additional reading: Clark and Wilkes Gibbs, 1990] 25 November Dialogue and Shared Context Attention Basic reading: Ros e et al. 1995; Walker, 1996] Additional reading: Poesio and Traum, 1997] 2 December Dialogue and Belief Basic reading: Galliers, 1992; McRoy and Hirst, 1993] Additional reading: Carberry and Lambert, to appear 1997; Stone, November 1997] Presenter: Fei Xia 4 December ) 5 December (3:30 5pm) Special Visitor: Johanna Moore 9 December Dialogue Systems Basic reading: Allen et al. 1996] Additional reading: Alexandersson et al. 1995; Reithinger ....

Susan McRoy and Graeme Hirst. Abductive explanations of dialogue misunderstandings. In Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), Utrecht, Netherlands, 1993.

....at(home; kathy) e e0: It is possible to generate by the system an answer similar to the one given in the example showing the incorrectness of the user plan (from the system s point of view) and pointing out a possible solution. 7. 2 Misunderstanding Dialogue In this example (adapted from [17, 11]) there is a misunderstanding of the real intentions of the rst speaker. In fact, after the second utterance, the second agent needs to revise the beliefs about the other agent intentions: 1. A: Do you know who s going to that meeting 2. B: Yes. 3. A: Who 4. B: Oh. Probably Mrs. McOwen and ....

Susan McRoy and Graeme Hirst. Abductive explanation of dialogue misunderstandings. In EACL'93, 1993.

....and discourses that involve presupposition. We believe, along with others [ 2, 5, 6, 14, 8 ] that presupposition can be treated separately from fictional discourse and that we can achieve this without a Meinongian ontology. The ultimate success of our approach would bear out this claim. McRoy [ 11, 10 ] presents an abductive treatment of misunderstanding in dialogs. By way of contrast we use a largely deductive (though time situated) inference engine. As McRoy and Hirst note, a deductive approach leads to contradictory beliefs and the need for belief revision. However, in our approach, ....

S. McRoy and G Hirst. Abductive explanations of dialogue misunderstandings. pages 277--286. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1993.

....the interpretation and performance of communicative acts in dialog occurs as a result of reasoning. 1 Introduction We are investigating computational models of dialog that can support robust, e#ective communication between people and computer systems [ McRoy et al. 1997; McRoy, 1995; 1998; McRoy and Hirst, 1993; McRoy et al. 1998a; 1998b; Ali et al. 1999; Restificar et al. 1999 ] Developing such methods requires: The specification and representation of information that a#ects learning and decision making. The specification and implementation of algorithms for discriminating among ....

Susan W. McRoy and Graeme Hirst. Abductive explanation of dialogue misunderstandings. In 6th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, pages 277--286, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1993.

....definition 2.2 and is projected as presupposition for the utterance. 3. 3 Pragmatic inferences in sequences of utterances We have already mentioned that speech repairs constitute a good benchmark for studying the generation and cancellation of pragmatic inferences along sequences of utterances (McRoy and Hirst, 1993). Suppose, for example, that Jane has two friends John Smith and John Pevler and that her roommate Mary has met only John Smith, a married fellow. Assume now that Jane has a conversation with Mary in which Jane mentions only the name John because she is not aware that Mary does not know ....

S. McRoy and G. Hirst. 1993. Abductive explanation of dialogue misunderstandings. In Proceedings, 6th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 277--286, April.

....interpretation and performance of communicative acts in dialog occurs as a result of reasoning. 1 Introduction We are investigating computational models of dialog that can support robust, e#ective communication between people and computer systems [ McRoy et al. 1997, McRoy, 1995, McRoy, 1998, McRoy and Hirst, 1993, McRoy et al. 1998a, McRoy et al. 1998b, Ali et al. 1999a, Restificar et al. 1999a, Restificar et al. 1999b ] Developing such methods requires: The specification and representation of information that a#ects learning and decision making. The specification and implementation of ....

Susan W. McRoy and Graeme Hirst. Abductive explanation of dialogue misunderstandings. In 6th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, pages 277--286, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1993.

....if they are poorly written or expressed; highquality language generation is very difficult for people. Nevertheless, people are, in general, quite successful in their use of language. That s because they have strategies This paper summarizes work reported in greater detail in references [15, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28]. y Susan McRoy is now at the Department of Electrical Engineeringand Computer Science, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201, U.S.A. z Peter Heeman is now at the Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, U.S.A. for coping with their ....

....of particular participants. What these accounts lack that computational accounts provide is an explanation of how people can identify the convention that is relevant, especially when there is no pre existing expectation. 5. 3 A synthesis In our work (described more fully in references [27, 28]) we have developed a model of interaction that addresses the possibility that the participants might differ about the speech act that is performed by some utterance, without requiring extended reasoning about the speaker s goals. According to the model, speakers form expectations on the basis of ....

McRoy, Susan W. and Hirst, Graeme. "Abductive explanation of dialogue misunderstandings." Proceedings of the 6th conference of the European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1993, 277--286.

....as they are needed. It also allows us to capture vagueness or ambiguity that is present in the utterance form. The design of the discourse model used in our work builds on the McRoy and Hirst s previous work on the Recognition and Repair of Speech Act Misunderstandings (RRM) project [ McRoy and Hirst, 1993, McRoy, 1995b, McRoy and Hirst, 1995b ] This work unifies theories of speech act production, interpretation, and repair. It combines intentional and social accounts of interaction to constrain the amount of reasoning that is necessary to identify a plausible interpretation. B2 is being ....

....as well as intended interpretations would have to deal with a potential combinatoric explosion of alternatives. To prevent this, a system must be able to focus its processing on the most likely interpretations and avoid extended inference, unless it is necessary. The approach taken by McRoy and Hirst [ 1995b, 1993, 1995b ] combines intentional and social accounts of discourse to capture the expectations that help constrain discourse, without requiring extended inference about plans. In intentional accounts, speakers use their beliefs, goals, and expectations to decide what to say; when they interpret an ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Susan W. McRoy and Graeme Hirst. Abductive explanation of dialogue misunderstandings. In 6th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, pages 277--286, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1993.

....need to have some idea of the beliefs and intentions that particular actions can express, so that they can make judgments about their appropriateness in the context. Thus, some synthesis of Conversation Analysis and intentional approaches appears to be necessary. A possible synthesis In our work [16, 17] we have developed a model of communicative interaction that supports the negotiation of meaning. According to the model, speakers form expectations on the basis of what they hear, and thus monitor for differences in understanding. If necessary, they also reinterpret utterances in response to new ....

Susan W. McRoy and Graeme Hirst. Abductive explanation of dialogue misunderstandings. In 6th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, pages 277--286, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1993.

....how plan failures are reasoned about, how plan failures affect the agent s beliefs, and how these failures are repaired. Third, this research needs to be integrated into a more complete plan based approach to language, and needs to be extended so as to handle more general discourse plan failures (McRoy and Hirst, 1993; McRoy and Hirst, 1994; Horton and Hirst, 1991; Heeman, 1993; Edmonds, 1994; Hirst et al. 1994) A benchmark for such future work could be dialogue (8.1) below, from the London Lund corpus (Svartvik and Quirk, 1980, S.2.4a:1 8) which is the basis of the example used in section 6. This dialogue ....

McRoy, Susan and Graeme Hirst. 1993. Abductive explanations of dialogue misunderstanding. In Proceedings, 6th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 277--286, Utrecht, April.

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