File size: 57,333 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 | {
"paper_id": "P91-1004",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:03:31.607936Z"
},
"title": "Toward a Plan-Based Understanding Model for Mixed-Initiative Dialogues",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hiroaki",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kitano",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh",
"location": {
"postCode": "15213",
"region": "PA"
}
},
"email": "hiroaki@cs.cmu.edu"
},
{
"first": "Carol",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van Ess-Dykema",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh",
"location": {
"postCode": "15213",
"region": "PA"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "This paper presents an enhanced model of plan-based dialogue understanding. Most plan-based dialogue understanding models derived from [Litman and Allen, 1987] assume that the dialogue speakers have access to the same domain plan library, and that the active domain plans are shared by the two speakers. We call these features shared domain plan constraints. These assumptions, however, are too strict to account for mixedinitiative dialogues where each speaker has a different set of domain plans that are housed in his or her own plan library, and where an individual speaker's domain plans may be activated at any point in the dialogue. We propose an extension to the Litman and Allen model by relaxing the shared domain plan constraints. Our extension improves (1) the ability to track the currently active plan, (2) the ability to explain the planning behind speaker utterances, and (3) the ability to track which speaker controls the conversational initiative in the dialogue.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P91-1004",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "This paper presents an enhanced model of plan-based dialogue understanding. Most plan-based dialogue understanding models derived from [Litman and Allen, 1987] assume that the dialogue speakers have access to the same domain plan library, and that the active domain plans are shared by the two speakers. We call these features shared domain plan constraints. These assumptions, however, are too strict to account for mixedinitiative dialogues where each speaker has a different set of domain plans that are housed in his or her own plan library, and where an individual speaker's domain plans may be activated at any point in the dialogue. We propose an extension to the Litman and Allen model by relaxing the shared domain plan constraints. Our extension improves (1) the ability to track the currently active plan, (2) the ability to explain the planning behind speaker utterances, and (3) the ability to track which speaker controls the conversational initiative in the dialogue.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "In this paper, we present an enhanced plan-based model of dialogue understanding that provides a framework for computer processing of mixed-initiative dialogues. In mixed-initiative dialogues, each speaker brings to the conversation his or her own plans and goals based on his or her own domain knowledge, and which do not necessarily match those of the other speaker, even in cooperative situations. Thus, mixed-initiative dialogues exhibit a more complicated discourse structure than do dialogues in which a single speaker controls the conversational initiative.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "The model we present builds on the framework of [Litman and Allen, 1987] . We hypothesize, however, that speaker-specific plan libraries are needed, instead of a single plan library storing joint plans, for a plan-based theory of discourse to account for mixedinitiativedialogues. In our framework, the understanding system activates the instantiated schemata (places them on the stack) from each speaker's individual plan library 2, thus creating two domain plan stacks. We also theorize that in addition to using the domain plans that are stored in a speaker's memory (plan library), speakers incrementally expand their domain plans in response to the current context of the dialogue. These extensions enable our model to.\" *This author is supported, in part, by NEC Corporation, Japan.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 72,
"text": "[Litman and Allen, 1987]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "tThis author's research was made possible by a postdoctoral fellowship awarded her by the U.S. Department of Defense. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Department of Defense or of the United States government.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Provide a mechanism for tracking the currently active plan in mixed-initiative dialogues, \u2022 Explain the planning behind speaker utterances, \u2022 Provide a mechanism for tracking which speaker controls the conversational initiative, and for tracking the nesting of initiatives within a dialogue segment. \u2022 Reduce the amount of schema definition required to process mixed-initiative dialogues.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "Throughout this paper, we use two dialogue extrac-lIn this regard, we agree with [Grosz and Sidner, 1990] 's criticism of the master-slave model of plan recognition. 2Using the [Pollack, 1990] distinction, plans are mental objects when they are on the stack, and recipes-for-action when they are in the plan library. tions from our data: 1) an extraction from a Japanese dialogue in the conference registration domain, and 2) an extraction from a Spanish dialogue in the travel agency domain. 3 SpA and SpB refer to Speaker A and Speaker B, respectively. Dialogue I (Conference Registration, translated from Japanese):",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 105,
"text": "[Grosz and Sidner, 1990]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 192,
"text": "[Pollack, 1990]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "SpA: SpA: SpB: SpB: SpA: SpB: I would like to attend the conference.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "(1) What am I supposed to do?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "(2) First, you must register for the conference. (3) Do you have a registration form?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "(4) No, not yet.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "(5) Then we will send you one.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "Dialogue II (Travel Agency, translated from Spanish): Prior to the following dialogue exchanges, the traveler (SpB) asks the travel agent (SPA) for a recommendation on how it is best to travel to Barcelona. They agree that travel by bus is best. (1) You would take a nap in the bus on your way to Barcelona.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "(2) Couldn't we leave in the morning ... instead of at night?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "(3) Well, it would be a little difficult.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "(4) You would be traveling during the day which would be difficult because it's very hot.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "(5) Really?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "The current plan-based model of dialogue understanding [Litman and Allen, 1987 ] assumes a single plan library that contains the domain plans of the two speakers, and a shared plan stack mechanism to track the current plan structure of the dialogue. The shared stack contains the domain plans and the discourse plans from the plan library that are activated by the inference module of the dialogue understanding system. The domain plan is a joint plan shared by the two dialogue speakers. Although this shared stack mechanism accounts for highly task-oriented and cooperative dialogues where one can assume that both speakers share 3Dialogue 1 is extracted from a corpus of Japanese ATR (Advanced Telecommunication Research) recorded simulated conference registration telephone conversations. No visual information was exchanged between the telephone speakers. Dialogue 2 is extracted from a corpus of recorded Spanish dialogues in the travel agency domain, collected by the second author of this paper. These dialogues are simulated telephone conversations, where no visual information was exchanged. the same domain plan, the model does not account for mixed-initiative dialogues.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 78,
"text": "[Litman and Allen, 1987",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Limitations of the Current Plan-Based Dialogue Understanding Model",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "In this section we examine three limitations of the current plan-based dialogue understanding model: 1) the inability to track the currently active plan, 2) the inability to explain a speaker's planning behind his or her utterances, and 3) the inability to track conversational initiative control transfer. A dialogue understanding system must be able to infer the dialogue participants' goals in order to arrive at an understanding of the speakers' actions. The inability to explain the planning behind speaker utterances is a serious flaw in the design of a plan-based dialogue processing model.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Limitations of the Current Plan-Based Dialogue Understanding Model",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "Tracking the conversational control initiative provides the system with a mechanism to identify which of a speaker's plans is currently activated, and which goal is presently being persued. We believe that an understanding model for mixed-initiative dialogues must be able to account for these phenomena.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Limitations of the Current Plan-Based Dialogue Understanding Model",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "The Litman and Allen model lacks a mechanism to track which plan is the currently active plan in mixedinitiative dialogue where the two speakers have very different domain plan schemata in their individual plan libraries. The currently active plan is the plan or action that the dialogue processing system is currently considering. In Dialogue I, after utterance (2), What am I supposed to do?, by SpA, the stack should look like Figure 14 . Although the manner in which the conference registration domain plans may be expanded on the stack depends upon which domain plan schemata are available in a speaker's domain plan library, we assume that a rational agent would have a schema containing the plan to attend a conference, Attend-Conference. This plan is considered the currently active plan and thus marked [Next] . When processing the subsequent utterance, (3), First, you must register for the conference., the currently active plan should be understood as registration, RegS.zt:er, since SpB clearly states that the action 5 of registration is necessary to carry out the plan to attend the conference. The Litman and Allen model lacks a mechanism for instantiating a new plan within the domain unless the currently ac-4Notational conventions in this paper follow [Litman and Allen, 1987 ]. In their model, the currently active plan is labeled [Next] . ID-PARAH in P lan2 refers to IDENTIFY-PARAMETER. I1 in Plan2 and AC in Plan3 are abbreviated tags for INFORMREF (Inform with Reference to) andAttend-Conference, respectively. Proc in Plan2 stands for procedure.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 813,
"end": 819,
"text": "[Next]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1272,
"end": 1295,
"text": "[Litman and Allen, 1987",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 1352,
"end": 1358,
"text": "[Next]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 430,
"end": 440,
"text": "Figure 14",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tracking the Currently Active Plan",
"sec_num": "2.1."
},
{
"text": "SThe words plan and action can be used interchangably. A sequence of actions as specified in the decomposition of a plan carry out a plan. Each action can also be a plan which has its own decomposition. Actions are not decomposed when they are primitive operators [Litman and Alien, 1987] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 264,
"end": 288,
"text": "[Litman and Alien, 1987]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tracking the Currently Active Plan",
"sec_num": "2.1."
},
{
"text": "Planl [Completed] INTRODUCE-PLAN(SpA, SpB, II,Plan2) REQUEST(SpI, SpB, II) SURFACE-REQUES~(SpA, SpB, II) Plan2 ID-PARAM(SpB, SpA, proc,AC,Plan3) If: INFORMREF(~pB,SpA,proc) Plan3 AC: Attend-Conference Reg st/er ... [Next]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tracking the Currently Active Plan",
"sec_num": "2.1."
},
{
"text": "GetForm Fill Send , is executed, can the system process the prerequisite plan, Register. Looking at this constraint from the point of view of an event timeline, the Litman and Allen model can process only temporally sequential actions, i.e., the Attend-Conference event must be completed before the Register event can begin. This problem can be clearly illustrated when we look at the state of the stack after utterance (4), Do you have a registration form?, shown in Figure 2 . Utterance (4) stems from the action GetForm (GF) which is a plan for the conference office secretary to send a registration form to the participant. It is an action of the Register plan. Since the Attend-Conference plan has not been executed, the system has two active plans, Attend-Conference and GetForm, both marked [Next] , in the stack where only GetForm should be labeled the active plan.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 798,
"end": 804,
"text": "[Next]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 468,
"end": 476,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tracking the Currently Active Plan",
"sec_num": "2.1."
},
{
"text": "A second limitation of the Litman and Allen model is that it cannot explain the planning behind speaker utterances in certain situations. The system cannot process utterances stemming from speaker-specific domain plans that are enacted because they are an active response to the previous speaker's utterance. This is because the model assumes ajointplan to account for utterances spoken in the dialogue. But utterances that stem from an active response stem from neither shared domain plans currently on the stack nor from a plan In Figure 1 , the Attend-Conference domain plan from Dialogue I is expanded with the Regis t e r plan after the first utterance because utterance (4), Do you have a registration form?, and the subsequent conversation cannot be understood without having domain plans entailing the Regi s t e r plan in the stack. If this were a joint domain plan, SpA's utterance What am I supposed to do?, could not be explained. It can be inferred that SpA does not have a domain plan for attending a conference, or at least that the system did not activate it in the stack. The fact that SpA asks SpB What am I supposed to do? gives evidence that SpA and SpB do not share the Register domain plan at that point in the dialogue.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 533,
"end": 541,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Explaining Speaker Planning Behind Utterances",
"sec_num": "2.2."
},
{
"text": "Another example of speaker planning that the Litman and Allen model cannot explain, occurs in Dialogue II. After a series of interactions between SpA and SpB, SpB says in utterance (3), Couldn't we leave in the morning ... instead of at night?, as an active response to SpA. In order to explain the speaker planning behind these utterances, the current model would include the schemata shown in Figure 36 . Utterance (3), however, does not stem from speaker action. One way to correct this situation within the current model would be to allow for the ad hoc addition of the schema, 6This is a simplified list of schemata, excluding prerequisite conditions and effects. Like the Litman and Allen model, our schema definition follows that of NOAH [Sacerdoti, 1977] and STRIPS [Fikes and Nilsson, 1971] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 745,
"end": 762,
"text": "[Sacerdoti, 1977]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 774,
"end": 799,
"text": "[Fikes and Nilsson, 1971]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 395,
"end": 404,
"text": "Figure 36",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Explaining Speaker Planning Behind Utterances",
"sec_num": "2.2."
},
{
"text": "State-Preference. The consequence, however, of this approach is that too large a number of schemata are required, and stored in the plan library, This large number of schemata will explode exponentially as the size of the domain increases.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Explaining Speaker Planning Behind Utterances",
"sec_num": "2.2."
},
{
"text": "A third problem in the Litman and Allen model is that it cannot track which speaker controls the conversational initiative at a specific point in the dialogue, nor how initiatives are nested within a dialogue segment, e.g., within a clarification subdialogue. This is self-evident since the model accounts only for single-initiative dialogues. Since the model calls for a joint plan, it does not track which of the two speakers maintains or initiates the transfer of the conversational initiative within the dialogue. Thus, that the conversational initiative is transferred from SpA to SpB at utterance (3) in Dialogue II, Couldn't we leave in the morning ... instead of at night?, or that SpA maintains the initiative during SpB's request for clarification about the weather, utterance (6), Really?, cannot be explained by the Litman and Allen model.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tracking Conversational Initiative Control",
"sec_num": "2.3."
},
{
"text": "In order to overcome these limitations, we propose an enhanced plan-based model of dialogue understanding, building on the framework described in [Litman and Allen, 1987] . Our model inherits the basic flow of processing in [Litman and Allen, 1987] , such as a constraint-based search to activate the domain plan schemata in the plan library, and the stack operation.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 170,
"text": "[Litman and Allen, 1987]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 248,
"text": "[Litman and Allen, 1987]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Enhanced Model",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "However, we incorporate two modifications that enable our model to account for mixed-initiative dialogues, which the current model cannot. These modifications include:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Enhanced Model",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Speaker-Specific Domain Plan Libraries and the Individual Placement of Speaker-Specific Plans on the Stack.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Enhanced Model",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Incremental Domain Plan Expansion. First, our model assumes a domain plan library for each speaker and the individual placement of the speaker-specific domain plans on the stack. Figure 4 shows how the stack is organized in our model. The domain plan, previously considered a joint plan, is separated into two domain plans, each representing a domain plan of a specific speaker. Each speaker can only be represented on the stack by his or her own domain plans. Progression from one domain plan to another can only be accomplished through the system's recognition of speaker utterances in the dialogue. Second, our model includes an incremental expansion of domain plans. Dialogue speakers use domain plans stored in their individual plan library in response to the content of the previous speaker's utterance. The domain plans can be further expanded when they ac-Ovate additional domain plans in the plan library of the current speaker. For example, if a domain plan is marked [Next] (currently active), the system decomposes the plan into its component plan sequence.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 980,
"end": 986,
"text": "[Next]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 189,
"text": "Figure 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Enhanced Model",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "Then the first element in the component plan sequence (which is an action) is marked [Next] and the previous plan is no longer marked. Figure 5 illustrates how the domain plans in Dialogue I can be incrementally expanded. In Figure 5(a) , Attend-Conference is the only plan activated, and it is marked [Next] . As the plan is expanded, [Next] is moved to the first action of the decomposition sequence ( Figure 5(b) ). This expansion is attributed to information provided by the previous speaker, for example, First, you must register for the conference. (If such an utterance is not made, no expansion takes place.) Then, if the subsequent speaker has a plan for the registration procedure, the domain plan for Register is expanded under Register. Again, [Next] is moved to the first element of the component plan sequence, GetForm (Figure 5(c) ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 91,
"text": "[Next]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 308,
"text": "[Next]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 756,
"end": 762,
"text": "[Next]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 135,
"end": 143,
"text": "Figure 5",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 236,
"text": "Figure 5(a)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 404,
"end": 415,
"text": "Figure 5(b)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 833,
"end": 845,
"text": "(Figure 5(c)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Enhanced Model",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "We are implementing this model using the Spanish travel agency domain corpus and the Japanese ATR conference registration corpus. The implementation is in CMU CommonLisp, and uses the CMU FrameKit frame-based knowledge representation system. The module accepts output from the Generalized LR Parsers developed at Carnegie Mellon University [Tomita, 1985] .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 340,
"end": 354,
"text": "[Tomita, 1985]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An Enhanced Model",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "In our model, we provide a mechanism for consistently tracking the individual speaker's currently active plans. First, we show how the model keeps track of a speaker's plans within mixed-initiative dialogue. The state of the stack after utterance 2 and Plan 4 represents a domain plan of SpB. Since SpA does not know what he or she is supposed to do to attend the conference, the only plan in the stack is Attend-Conference. SpB knOWS the registration procedure details, so his or her domain plan is expanded to include Register, and then its decomposition into the GetForm Fill Send action sequence. The first element of the decomposition is further expanded, and an action sequence notHave",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tracking the Currently Active Plan",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "GetAdrs Send is created under GetForn~ The action sequence notHave GetAdrs Send is a sequence where the secretary's plan is to ask whether SpA already has a registration form (notHave), and if not, to ask his or her name and address (GetAdrs), and to send him or her a form (Send). Figure 7 shows the state of the stack in Dialogue I after SpB's question, utterance (4), Do you have a registration form?. From the information given in his or her previous utterance, (3), First, you must register for the conference., SpA's domain plan (Plan3) was expanded downward. Thus, Plan3 has a Register plan, and it is marked [Next] . For SpB, notHave is marked [Next] , indicating that it is his or her plan currently under consideration. Although SpB's currently active plan is notHave, SpA considers the Register plan to be the current plan because SpA does not have the schema that includes the decomposition of the Register plan.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 616,
"end": 622,
"text": "[Next]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 652,
"end": 658,
"text": "[Next]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 282,
"end": 290,
"text": "Figure 7",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tracking the Currently Active Plan",
"sec_num": "4.1."
},
{
"text": "Second, our model explains a speaker's active planning behind an utterance. In the Litman and Allen model, SpA's utterance (2) in Dialogue I, What am I supposed to do ?, cannot be explained if the domain plan Attend-Conference is shared by the two speakers. In such a jointplan both speakers would know that a conference participant needs to register for a conference. However, the rational agent will not ask What am I supposed to do? if he or she already knows the details of the registration procedure. But, if such an expansion is not made on the stack, the system cannot process SpB's reply, First, you must register for the conference., because there would be no domain plan on the stack for Register. This dilemma cannot be solved with ajointplan. It, however, can be resolved by assuming individual domain plan libraries and an active domain plan for each speaker. As shown in Figure 6 , when SpA asks What am I supposed to do?, the active domain plan is solely Attend-Conference, with no decomposition. SpB's domain plan, on the other hand, contains the full details of the conference registration procedure. This enables SpB to say First, you must register for the conference. It also enables SpB to ask Do you have a registration form?, because the action to ask whether SpA has a form or not (notHave) is already on the stack due to action decomposition.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 885,
"end": 893,
"text": "Figure 6",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Explaining Speaker Planning Behind Utterances",
"sec_num": "4.2."
},
{
"text": "Our model also explains speaker planning in Dialogue II. In this dialogue, the traveler (SpB)'s utterance (3), Couldn't we leave in the morning ... instead of at night?, can be explained by the plan specific tO SpB which is to State-Depart-Preference. In our model, we assign plans to a specific speaker, depending upon his or her role in the dialogue, e.g., traveler or travel agent. This eliminates the potential combinatorial explosion of the number of schemata required in the current model.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Explaining Speaker Planning Behind Utterances",
"sec_num": "4.2."
},
{
"text": "Third, our model provides a consistent mechanism to track who controls the conversational initiative at any given utterance in the dialogue. This mechanism provides an explanation for the initiative control rules proposed by [Walker and Whittaker, 1990] , within the plan-based model of dialogue understanding. Our data allow us to state the following rule:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 225,
"end": 253,
"text": "[Walker and Whittaker, 1990]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tracking Conversational Initiative Control",
"sec_num": "4.3."
},
{
"text": "\u2022 When Sp-X makes an utterance that instantiates a discourse plan based on his or her domain plan, then Sp-X controls the conversational initiative.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tracking Conversational Initiative Control",
"sec_num": "4.3."
},
{
"text": "This rule also holds in the nesting of initiatives, such as in a clarification dialogue segment:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tracking Conversational Initiative Control",
"sec_num": "4.3."
},
{
"text": "\u2022 When Sp-X makes an utterance that instantiates a discourse plan based on his or her domain plans and Sp-Y replies with an utterance that instantiates a discourse plan, then Sp-X maintains control of the conversational initiative.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tracking Conversational Initiative Control",
"sec_num": "4.3."
},
{
"text": "In Dialogue II, illustrated in Figure 8 , SpB's question, utterance (3), Couldn't we leave in the morning ... instead of at night?, instantiates discourse Plan 5. It stems from SpB's domain plan State-Depart-Preference.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 39,
"text": "Figure 8",
"ref_id": "FIGREF7"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tracking Conversational Initiative Control",
"sec_num": "4.3."
},
{
"text": "In this case, the first conversational initiative tracking rule applies, and the initiative is transferred to SpB.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tracking Conversational Initiative Control",
"sec_num": "4.3."
},
{
"text": "In contrast, SpB's response of Really? to SpA's utterance (5), You would be traveling during the day which would be difficult because it's very hot., is a request for clarification. This time, the second rule cited above for nested initiatives applies, and the initiative remains with SpA.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tracking Conversational Initiative Control",
"sec_num": "4.3."
},
{
"text": "allows other embedded turn-takings. 2) Communication plans -plans that determine how to execute or achieve an utterance goal or dialogue goals. 3) Dialogue plans -plans for establishing a dialogue construction. 4) Domain plans. The ATR model attempts to capture complex conversational interaction by using a hierarchy of plans whereas our model tries to capture the same phenomena by speaker-specific domain plans and discourse plans. Their interaction, communication, and dialogue plans operate at a level above our speaker-specific domain plans. Their plans serve as a type of meta-planning to their and our domain plans. An extension enabling their plan hierarchy to operate orthogonally to our model would be possible.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Works",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "Our model is consistent with the initiative control rules presented in [Walker and Whittaker, 1990] . In their control rules scheme, however, the speaker controis the initiative when the dialogue utterance type (surface structure analysis) is an assertion (unless the utterance is a response to a question), a command, or a question (unless the utterance is a response to a question or command). In our model, the conversational initiative control is explained by the speaker's planning. In our model, control is transferred from the INITIATING CONVERSATIONAL PARTICIPANT (ICP) tO the OTHER CONVERSATIONAL PARTICIPANT (OCP) when the utterance by the OCP is made based on the OCP's domain plan, not as a reply tO the utterance made by the ICP based on the ICP's domain plan. Cases where no initiative control transfer takes place despite the utterance type (assertion, command or question) substantiate that these utterances are (1) an assertion which is a response by the ICP through rD-PARAM tO answer a question, and (2) a question to clarify the command or question uttered by the ICP, and which includes a question functioning as a clarification discourse plan. Our model provides an explanation for the initiative control rules proposed by [Walker and Whittaker, 1990] within the framework of the plan-based model of dialogue understanding. [Walker and Whittaker, 1990 ] only provide a descriptive explanation of this phenomenon.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 99,
"text": "[Walker and Whittaker, 1990]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 1245,
"end": 1273,
"text": "[Walker and Whittaker, 1990]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 1346,
"end": 1373,
"text": "[Walker and Whittaker, 1990",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Works",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "Carberry [Carberry, 1990] discusses plan disparity in which the plan inferred by the user modeling program differs from the actual plan of the user. However, her work does not address mixed-initiative dialogue understanding where either of the speakers can control the conversational initaitive.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 25,
"text": "[Carberry, 1990]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Works",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "The ATR dialogue understanding system [Yarnaoka and Iida, 1990 ] incorporates a plan hierarchy comprising three kinds of universal pragmatic and domain plans to process cooperative and goal-oriented dialogues. They simulated the processing of such dialogues using the following plans: 1) Interaction plans -plans characterized by dialogue turn-taking that describes a sequence of communicative acts. Turn-taking",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 62,
"text": "[Yarnaoka and Iida, 1990",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Works",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "In this paper we present an enhanced model of planbased dialogue understanding. Our analysis demonstrates that the joint-plan assumption employed in the [Litman and Allen, 1987] count for active planning behind speaker utterances and track the transfer of conversational initiative control in dialogues, all of which characterize mixed-initiative dialogues. Our model employs speaker-specific domain plan libraries and the incremental expansion of domain plans to account for these mixed-initiative dialogue phenomena. We have used representative dialogues in two languages to demonstrate how our model accounts for these phenomena.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 153,
"end": 177,
"text": "[Litman and Allen, 1987]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6."
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "We would like to thank Dr. John Fought, Linguistics Department, University of Pennsylvania, for his help in collecting the Spanish travel agency domain corpus, and Mr. Hitoshilida and Dr. Akira Kurematsu for providing us with their Japanese ATR conference registration domain corpus. We also thank Mr. Ikuto Ishizuka, Hitachi, Japan and Dr. Michael Mauldin, Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie Mellon University for implementation support.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgements",
"sec_num": "7."
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "STRIPS: A new apporach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carberry ; Carberry",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fikes",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nilsson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grosz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sidner",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Litman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Allen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1971,
"venue": "Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "2",
"issue": "",
"pages": "163--200",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Carberry, 1990] Carberry, S., Plan Recognition in Natural Language Dialogue, The MIT Press, 1990. [Fikes and Nilsson, 1971] Fikes, R., and Nilsson, N., \"STRIPS: A new apporach to the application of the- orem proving to problem solving,\" Artificial Intelli- gence, 2, 189-208, 1971. [Grosz and Sidner, 1990] Grosz, B. and Sidner, C., '~Plans for Discourse,\" In Cohen, Morgan and Pol- lack, eds. Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA., 1990. [Litman and Allen, 1987] Litman, D. and Allen, J., \"A Plan Recognition Model for Subdialogues in Con- versation\", Cognitive Science 11 (1987), 163-200.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Efficient Algorithms for Parsing Natural Language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pollack ; Pollack",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Sacerdoti",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tomita",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dykema",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kitano",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Forthcoming] Van Ess-Dykema",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kitano",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1977,
"venue": "Toward a Computational Understanding Model for Mixed-Initiative Telephone Dialogues",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Pollack, 1990] Pollack, M., '~Plans as Complex Men- tal Attitudes,\" In Cohen, Morgan and Pollack, eds. Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cam- bridge, MA., 1990. [Sacerdoti, 1977] Sacerdoti, E. D., A Structure for Plans and Behavior, New York: American Elsevier, 1977. [Tomita, 1985] Tomita, M., Efficient Algorithms for Parsing Natural Language, Kluwer Academic, 1985. [Van Ess-Dykema and Kitano, Forthcoming] Van Ess-Dykema, C. and Kitano, H., Toward a Compu- tational Understanding Model for Mixed-Initiative Telephone Dialogues, Carnegie Mellon University: Technical Report, (Forthcoming).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "A Method to Predict the Next Utterance Using a Four-layered Plan Recognition Model",
"authors": [
{
"first": ";",
"middle": [],
"last": "Whittaker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Walker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Whitlaker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yamaoka",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Iida",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "and Whittaker, 1990] Walker, M, and Whit- laker, S., \"Mixed Initiativein Dialogue: An Investi- gation into Discourse Segmentation,\" Proceedings of ACL-90, Pittsburgh, 1990. [Yamaoka and Iida, 1990] Yamaoka, T. and Iida, H., \"A Method to Predict the Next Utterance Using a Four-layered Plan Recognition Model,\" Proceed- ings of the European Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence, Stockholm, 1990.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF1": {
"uris": null,
"text": "State of the Stack after Utterance (2) in Dialogue I tive plan (or an action of the domain plan) marked by [Next], is executed. Thus, in this example, only if the plan Attend-Conference marked as [Next]",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"uris": null,
"text": "State of the Stack after Utterance (4) in Dialogue I which concurrently exists in the plan libraries of the two speakers.",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF3": {
"uris": null,
"text": "Figure 4: New Stack Structure",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF4": {
"uris": null,
"text": "What am I supposed to do?, in Dialogue I, should look like Figure 6. Plan 3 represents a domain plan of SpA, ((HEADER: Set-Itinerary) (Decomposition: Set-Destination Decide-Transportation ...) ((HEADER: Decide-Transportation) (Decomposition: Tell-Depart-Times Tell-Outcomes Establish-Agreement)) Domain Plan Schemata for Dialogue II (Partial Listing) Incremental Domain Plan Expansion for Dialogue I",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF6": {
"uris": null,
"text": "State of the Stack after Utterance (2State of the Stack after Utterance (4) in Dialogue I",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF7": {
"uris": null,
"text": "model is too restrictive to track an individual speaker's instantiated plans, ac-Plan5 [Completed] INTRODUCE-PLAN (SpB, SpA, If, Plan6) REQUEST ( Sp~, SpA, I 1 ) SURFACE-REQUEST (SpB)SpA, Ask-If (depart (morning)) ) Plan6ID-PARAM(SpA, SpB,possible(depart(morning)),PREF,Plan4)If: INFORMIF(SpA, SpB!possible(depart(morning))) State of the Stack after Utterance (3) in Dialogue II",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
}
}
}
} |