File size: 108,161 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 | {
"paper_id": "P95-1019",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:33:51.194213Z"
},
"title": "Response Generation in Collaborative Negotiation*",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jennifer",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chu-Carroll",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Delaware Newark",
"location": {
"postCode": "19716",
"region": "DE",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Sandra",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carberry",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Delaware Newark",
"location": {
"postCode": "19716",
"region": "DE",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": "carberry@cis.udel.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "In collaborative planning activities, since the agents are autonomous and heterogeneous, it is inevitable that conflicts arise in their beliefs during the planning process. In cases where such conflicts are relevant to the t~t~k at hand, the agents should engage in collaborative negotiation as an attempt to square away the discrepancies in their beliefs. This paper presents a computational strategy for detecting conflicts regarding proposed beliefs and for engaging in collaborative negotiation to resolve the conflicts that warrant resolution. Our model is capable of selecting the most effective aspect to address in its pursuit of conflict resolution in cases where multiple conflicts arise, and of selecting appropriate evidence to justify the need for such modification. Furthermore, by capturing the negotiation process in a recursive Propose-Evaluate.Modify cycle of actions, our model can successfully handle embedded negotiation subdialogues.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P95-1019",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "In collaborative planning activities, since the agents are autonomous and heterogeneous, it is inevitable that conflicts arise in their beliefs during the planning process. In cases where such conflicts are relevant to the t~t~k at hand, the agents should engage in collaborative negotiation as an attempt to square away the discrepancies in their beliefs. This paper presents a computational strategy for detecting conflicts regarding proposed beliefs and for engaging in collaborative negotiation to resolve the conflicts that warrant resolution. Our model is capable of selecting the most effective aspect to address in its pursuit of conflict resolution in cases where multiple conflicts arise, and of selecting appropriate evidence to justify the need for such modification. Furthermore, by capturing the negotiation process in a recursive Propose-Evaluate.Modify cycle of actions, our model can successfully handle embedded negotiation subdialogues.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "In collaborative consultation dialogues, the consultant and the executing agent collaborate on developing a plan to achieve the executing agent's domain goal. Since agents are autonomous and heterogeneous, it is inevitable that conflicts in their beliefs arise during the planning process. In such cases, collaborative agents should attempt to square away the conflicts by engaging in collaborative negotiation to determine what should constitute their shared plan of actions and shared beliefs. Collaborative negotiation differs from non-collaborative negotiation and argum_entation mainly in the attitude of the participants, since collaborative agents are not selfcentered, but act in a way as to benefit the agents as This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. IRI-9122026. a group. Thus, when facing a conflict, a collaborative agent should not automatically reject a belief with which she does not agree; instead, she should evaluate the belief and the evidence provided to her and adopt the belief if the evidence is convincing. On the other hand, if the evaluation indicates that the agent should maintain her original belief, she should attempt to provide sufficient justification to convince the other agent to adopt this belief if the belief is relevant to the task at hand.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "This paper presents a model for engaging in collaborative negoa~ion to resolve conflicts in agents' beliefs about domain knowledge. Our model 1) detects conflicts in beliefs and initiates a negotiation subdialogue only when the conflict is relevant to the current ta.~k, 2) selects the most effective aspect to address in its pursuit of conflict resolution when multiple conflicts exist, 3) selects appropriate evidence to justify the system's proposed modification of the user's beliefs, and 4) captures the negotiation process in a recursive Propose-Evaluate-Mod/fy cycle of actions, thus enabling the system to handle embedded negotiation sulxlialognes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Researchers have studied the analysis and generation of arguments (Birnbaum et al., 1980; Reichman, 1981; Cohen, 1987; Sycara, 1989; Quilici, 1992; Maybury, 1993) ; however, agents engaging in argumentative dialogues are solely interested in winning an argument and thus exhibit different behavior from collaborative agents. Sidner (1992; formulated an artificial language for modeling collaborative discourse using propo~acceptance and proposal/rejection sequences; however, her work is descriptive and does not specify response generation strategies for agents involved in collaborative interactions. Webber and Joshi (1982) have noted the importance of a cooperative system providing support for its responses. They identified strategies that a system can adopt in justifying its beliefs; however, they did not specify the criteria under which each of these strategies should be selected. Walker (1994) described a method of determining when to include optional warrants to justify a claim based on factors such as communication cost, inference cost, and cost of memory retrieval. However, her model focuses on determining when to include informationally redundant utterances, whereas our model determines whether or not justification is needed for a claim to be convincing and, ff so, selects appropriate evidence from the system's private beliefs to support the claim.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 89,
"text": "(Birnbaum et al., 1980;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 105,
"text": "Reichman, 1981;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 118,
"text": "Cohen, 1987;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 132,
"text": "Sycara, 1989;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 147,
"text": "Quilici, 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 162,
"text": "Maybury, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 338,
"text": "Sidner (1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 603,
"end": 626,
"text": "Webber and Joshi (1982)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF34"
},
{
"start": 892,
"end": 905,
"text": "Walker (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Caswey et al. (Cawsey et al., 1993; Logan et al., 1994) introduced the idea of utilizing a belief revision mechanism (Galliers, 1992) to predict whether a set of evidence is sufficient to change a user's existing belief and to generate responses for information retrieval dialogues in a library domain. They argued that in the library dialogues they analyzed, \"in no cases does negotiation extend beyond the initial belief conflict and its immediate resolution:' (Logan et al., 1994, page 141) . However, our analysis of naturally-occurring consultation dialogues (Columbia University Transcripts, 1985; SRI Transcripts, 1992) shows that in other domains conflict resolution does extend beyond a single exchange of conflicting befiefs; therefore we employ a re, cursive model for collaboration that captures extended negotiation and represents the structure of the discourse. Furthermore, their system deals with a single conflict, while our model selects a focus in its pursuit of conflict resolution when multiple conflicts arise. In addition, we provide a process for selecting among multiple possible pieces of evidence.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 35,
"text": "(Cawsey et al., 1993;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 55,
"text": "Logan et al., 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 133,
"text": "(Galliers, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 463,
"end": 493,
"text": "(Logan et al., 1994, page 141)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 564,
"end": 603,
"text": "(Columbia University Transcripts, 1985;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 604,
"end": 626,
"text": "SRI Transcripts, 1992)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Collaborative negoti~ion occurs when conflicts arise among agents developing a shared plan 1 during collaborative planning. A collaborative agent is driven by the goal of developing a plan that best satisfies the interests of all the agents as a group, instead of one that maximizes his own interest. This results in several distinctive features of collaborative negotiation: 1) A collaborative agent does not insist on winning an argument, and may change his beliefs ff another agent presents convincing justification for an opposing belief. This differentiates collaborative negotiation from argumentation (Birnbaum et al., 1980; Reichman, 1981; Cohen, 1987; Quilici, 1992) . 2) Agents involved in collaborative negotiation are open and honest with one another; they will not deliberately present false information to other agents, present information in such a way as to mislead the other agents, or strategically hold back information from other agents for later use. This distinguishes collaborative negotiation from non-collaborative negotiation such as labor negotiation (Sycara, 1989) . 3) Collaborative agents are interested in 1The notion of shared plan has been used in (Grosz and Sidner, 1990; Allen, 1991) . others' beliefs in order to decide whether to revise their own beliefs so as to come to agreement (Chu-Carroll and Carberry, 1995) . Although agents involvedin argumentation and non-collaborative negotiation take other agents' beliefs into consideration, they do so mainly to find weak points in their opponents' beliefs and attack them to win the argument.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 608,
"end": 631,
"text": "(Birnbaum et al., 1980;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 632,
"end": 647,
"text": "Reichman, 1981;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 648,
"end": 660,
"text": "Cohen, 1987;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 661,
"end": 675,
"text": "Quilici, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 1078,
"end": 1092,
"text": "(Sycara, 1989)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
},
{
"start": 1192,
"end": 1205,
"text": "Sidner, 1990;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 1206,
"end": 1218,
"text": "Allen, 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 1319,
"end": 1351,
"text": "(Chu-Carroll and Carberry, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features of Collaborative Negotiation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "In our earlier work, we built on Sidner's proposal/acceptance and proposal/rejection sequences (Sitnet, 1994 ) and developed a model tha\u00a2 captures collaborative planning processes in a Propose-Evaluate-Modify cycle of actions (Chu-Carroll and Carberry, 1994) . This model views coll~tive planning as agent A proposing a set of actions and beliefs to be i~ted into the plan being developed, agent B evaluating the proposal to determine whether or not he accepts the proposal and, ff not, agent B proposing a set of modifications to A's original proposal. The proposed modifications will again be evaluated by A, and if conflicts arise, she may propose modifications to B's previously proposed modifications, resulting in a recursive process. However, our research did not specify, in cases where multiple conflicts arise, how an agent should identify which pm of an unaccept~ proposal to address or how to select evidence to support the proposed modification. This paper extends that work by i~ting into the modification process a slrategy to determine the aspect of the proposal that the agent will address in her pursuit of conflict resolution, as well as a means of selecting appropriate evidence to justify the need for such modification.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 108,
"text": "(Sitnet, 1994",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 258,
"text": "(Chu-Carroll and Carberry, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features of Collaborative Negotiation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "In order to capture the agents' intentions conveyed by their utterances, our model of collaborative negotiation utilizes an enhanced version of the dialogue model described in (Lambert and Carberry, 1991) to represent the current status of the interaction. The enhanced dialogue model has four levels: the domain level which consists of the domain plan being constructed for the user's later execution, the problem-solving level which contains the actions being performed to construct the do-n~n plan, the belief level which consists of the mutual beliefs pursued during the planning process in order to further the problem-solving intentions, and the discourse level which contains the communicative actions initiated to achieve the mutual beliefs (Chu-Carroll and Carberry, 1994) . This paper focuses on the evaluation and modification of proposed beliefs, and details a strategy for engaging in collaborative negotiations.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 176,
"end": 204,
"text": "(Lambert and Carberry, 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 749,
"end": 781,
"text": "(Chu-Carroll and Carberry, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Response Generation in Collaborative Negotiation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Our system maintains a set of beliefs about the domain and about the user's beliefs. Associated with each belief is a strength that represents the agent's confidence in holding that belief. We model the strength of a belief using endorsements, which are explicit records of factors that affect one's certainty in a hypothesis (Cohen, 1985) , following (Galliers, 1992; Logan et al., 1994) . Our endorsements are based on the semantics of the utterance used to convey a befief, the level of expertise of the agent conveying the belief, stereotypical knowledge, etc. The belief level of the dialogue model consists of mutual beliefs proposed by the agents' discourse actions. When an agent proposes a new belief and gives (optional) supporting evidence for it, this set of proposed beliefs is represented as a belief tree, where the belief represented by a child node is intended to support that represented by its parent. The root nodes of these belief trees (rap-level beliefs) contribute to problem-solving actions and thus affect the domain plan being developed. Given a set of newly proposed beliefs, the system must decide whether to accept the proposal or m initiate a negotiation dialogue to resolve conflicts. The evaluation of proposed beliefs starts at the leaf nodes of the proposed belief trees since acceptance of a piece of proposed evidence may affect acceptance of the parent belief it is intended to support. The process continues until the top-level proposed beliefs are evaluated. Conflict resolution strategies are invoked only if the top-level proposed beliefs are not accepted because if collaborative agents agree on a belief relevant to the domain plan being constructed, it is irrelevant whether they agree on the evidence for that belief (Young et al., 1994) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 326,
"end": 339,
"text": "(Cohen, 1985)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 368,
"text": "(Galliers, 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 388,
"text": "Logan et al., 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 1763,
"end": 1783,
"text": "(Young et al., 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF37"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluating Proposed Beliefs",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "In determining whether to accept a proposed befief or evidential relationship, the evaluator first constructs an evidence set containing the system's evidence thin supports or attacks _bcl and the evidence accepted by the system that was proposed by the user as support for -bel. Each piece of evidence contains a belief _beli, and an evidential relationship supports (.beli,-bel) . Following Walker's weakest link assumption (Walker, 1992) the strength of the evidence is the weaker of the strength of the belief and the strength of the evidential relationship. The evaluator then employs a simplified version of Galliers' belief revision mechanism 2 (Galliers, 1992; Logan et al., 1994) to compare the strengths of the evidence that supports and attacks _bel. If the strength of one set of evidence strongly outweighs that of the other, the decision to accept or reject.bel is easily made. However, if the difference in their strengths does not exceed a pre-determined 2For details on how our model determines the acceptance of a belief using the ranking of endorsements proposed by GaUiers, see (Chu-Carroll, 1995) . ..... : ............................................................... \". \"d \"\" \"[ lnf~J,S,~Teache~ 2and 3threshold, the evaluator has insufficient information to determine whether to adopt _bel and therefore will initiate an information-sharing subdialogue (Cho-Carmll and Carberry, 1995) to share information with the user so that each of them can knowiedgably re-evaluate the user's original proposal. If, during infommtion-sharing, the user provides convincing support for a belief whose negation is held by the system, the system may adopt the belief after the re-evaluation process, thus resolving the conflict without negotiation.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 368,
"end": 380,
"text": "(.beli,-bel)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 426,
"end": 440,
"text": "(Walker, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
},
{
"start": 652,
"end": 668,
"text": "(Galliers, 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 669,
"end": 688,
"text": "Logan et al., 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 1098,
"end": 1117,
"text": "(Chu-Carroll, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 1120,
"end": 1220,
"text": "..... : ............................................................... \". \"d \"\" \"[ lnf~J,S,~Teache~",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1379,
"end": 1410,
"text": "(Cho-Carmll and Carberry, 1995)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluating Proposed Beliefs",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "..v.~ ..e~......n.~q.h..x~ ............................ ., ~.\" -~ MB~3tSt-Teaches(Smith~I)) ] a ; 1 ~q. , i[MB~J,S,O.-S~,~KS,~th,n~,a ~)) ~, -.. -. Dlsc~rse Level \", i ....",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluating Proposed Beliefs",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "To illustrate the evaluation of proposed beliefs, consider the following uttermmes:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Example",
"sec_num": "4.1.1"
},
{
"text": "(1) S: 1 think Dr. Smith is teaching AI next semester.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Example",
"sec_num": "4.1.1"
},
{
"text": "(2) U: Dr. Smith is not teaching AL",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Example",
"sec_num": "4.1.1"
},
{
"text": "(3) He is going on sabbatical next year. Figure 1 shows the belief and discourse levels of the dialogue model that captures utterances (2) and (3). The belief evaluation process will start with the belief at the leaf node of the proposed belief txee, On.Sabbatical(Smith, next year)). The system will first gather its evidence pe~aining to the belief, which includes I) a warranted belief ~ that Dr. Smith has postponed his sabbatical until 1997 (Postponed-Sabbatical(Smith, J997)), 2) a warranted belief that Dr. Smith postponing his sabbatical until 1997 supports the belief that he is not going on sabbatical next year (supports (Postponed-Sabbatical(Smith,1997) , -~On-SabbaticaI(Smith, next year)), 3) a strong belief that Dr. Smith will not be a visitor at IBM next year (-~visitor(Smith, IBM, next year)), and 4) a warranted belief that Dr. Smith not being a visitor at IBM next aThe strength of a belief is classified as: warranted, strong, or weak, based on the endorsement of the belief. year supports the belief that he is not going on sabbatical next year (supports (-~visitor(Smith, IBM, next year) , -,On-Sabbatical(Smith, next year)), perhaps because Dr. Smith has expressed his desire to spend his sabbatical only at IBM). The belief revision mechanism will then be invoked to determine the system's belief about On-Sabbatical(Smith, next year) based on the system's own evidence and the user's statement. Since beliefs (1) and (2) above constitute a warranted piece of evidence against the proposed belief and beliefs (3) and (4) constitute a strong piece of evidence against it, the system will not accept On-Sabbatical(Smith, next year).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 632,
"end": 665,
"text": "(Postponed-Sabbatical(Smith,1997)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1078,
"end": 1111,
"text": "(-~visitor(Smith, IBM, next year)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 49,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Example",
"sec_num": "4.1.1"
},
{
"text": "The system believes that being on sabbatical implies a faculty member is not teaching any courses; thus the proposed evidential relationship will be accepted. However, the system will not accept the top-level proposed belief, -,Teaches(Smith, A/), since the system has a prior belief to the contrary (as expressed in utterance ( 1 )) and the only evidence provided by the user was an implication whose antecedent was not accepted.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Example",
"sec_num": "4.1.1"
},
{
"text": "The collaborative planning principle in (Whittak~ and Stenton, 1988; Walker, 1992) suggests that \"conversants must provide evidence of a detected discrepancy in belief as soon as possible.\" Thus, once an agent detects a relevant conflict, she must notify the other agent of the conflict and initiate a negotiation subdialogne to resolve it-to do otherwise is to fail in her responsibility as a collaborative agent. We capture the attempt to resolve a conflict with the problem-solving action Modify-Proposal, whose goal is to modify the proposal to a form that will potentially be accepted by both agents. When applied to belief modification, Modify-Proposal has two specializations: Correct-Node, for when a proposed belief is not accepted, and Correct-Relation, for when a proposed evidential relationship is not accepted. Figure 2 shows the problem-solving recipes 4 for Correct-Node and its subaction, Modify-Node, that is responsible for the actual modification of the proposal. The applicability conditions 5 of Correct-Node specify that the action can only be invoked when _sl believes that _node is not acceptable while _s2 believes that it is (when _sl and _s2 disagree about the proposed belief represented by ..node). However, since this is a collaborative interaction, the actual modification can only be performed when both ..sl and _s2 believe that _node is not acceptable w that is, the conflict between _sl and .s2 must have been resolved. This is captured by 4A recipe (Pollack, 1986 ) is a template for performing actions. It contains the applicabifity conditions for performing an action, the subactions comprising the body of an action, etc.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 68,
"text": "(Whittak~ and Stenton, 1988;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 82,
"text": "Walker, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
},
{
"start": 1486,
"end": 1500,
"text": "(Pollack, 1986",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 825,
"end": 833,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Modifying Unaccepted Proposals",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "SApplicabflity conditions are conditions that must already be satisfied in order for an action to be reasonable to pursue, whereas an agent can try to achieve unsatisfied preconditions. The Correct-Node and Modify-Node Recipes the applicability condition and precondition of Mod/fy-Node. ~ attempt to satisfy the precondition causes the system to post as a mutual belief to be achieved the belief that ..node is not acceptable, leading the system to adopt discourse actions to change _s2's beliefs, thus initiating a collaborative negotiation subdialogne, e",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Modifying Unaccepted Proposals",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "When multiple conflicts arise between the system and the user regarding the user's proposal, the system must identify the aspect of the proposal on which it should focus in its pursuit of conflict resolution. For example, in the case where Correct-Node is selected as the specialization of Modify-Proposal, the system must determine how the parameter node in Correct-Node should be instantiated. The goal of the modification process is to resolve the agents' conflicts regarding the unaccepted top-level proposed beliefs. For each such belief, the system could provide evidence against the befief itself, address the unaccepted evidence proposed by the user to eliminate the user's justification for the belief, or both. Since collaborative agents are expected to engage in effective and efficient dialogues, the system should address the unaccepted belief that it predicts will most quickly resolve the top-level conflict. Therefore, for each unaccepted top-level belief, our process for selecting the focus of modificatkm involves two steps: identifying a candidate foci tree from the proposed belief tree, and selecting a eThis subdialogue is considered an interrupt by Whittaker, Stenton, and Walker (Whittaker and Stenton, 1988; Walker and Whittaker, 1990) , initiated to negotiate the truth of a piece of information. However, the utterances they classify as interrupts include not only our negotiation subdialogues, generated for the purpose of modifying a proposal, but also clarification subdialogues, and information-sharing subdialogues (Chu-Carroll and Carberry, 1995) , which we contend should be part of the evaluation process.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1204,
"end": 1233,
"text": "(Whittaker and Stenton, 1988;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF35"
},
{
"start": 1234,
"end": 1261,
"text": "Walker and Whittaker, 1990)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1548,
"end": 1580,
"text": "(Chu-Carroll and Carberry, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "4.2,1 Selecting the Focus of Modification",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "focus from the candidate foci tree using the heuristic \"attack the belief(s) that will most likely resolve the conflict about the top-level belief.\" A candidate loci tree contains the pieces of evidence in a proposed belief tree which, if disbelieved by the user, might change the user's view of the unaccepted top-level proposed belief (the root node of that belief tree). It is identified by performing a depthfirst search on the proposed belief tree. When a node is visited, both the belief and the evidential relationship between it and its parent are examined. If both the belief and relationship were accepted by the evaluator, the search on the current branch will terminate, since once the system accepts a belief, it is irrelevant whether it accepts the user's support for that belief (Young et al., 1994) . Otherwise, this piece of evidence will be included in the candidate loci tree and the system will continue to search through the evidence in the belief tree proposed as support for the unaccepted belief and/or evidential relationship.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 794,
"end": 814,
"text": "(Young et al., 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF37"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "4.2,1 Selecting the Focus of Modification",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Once a candidate foci tree is identified, the system should select the focus of modification based on the likelihood of each choice changing the user's belief about the top-level belief. Figure 3 shows our algorithm for this selection process. Given an unaccept~ belief (.bel) and the beliefs proposed to support it, Select-Focus. Modification will annotate_bel with 1) its focus of modification (.bel.focus), which contains a set of beliefs (.bel and/or its descendents) which, if disbelieved by the user, are predicted to cause him to disbelieve _bel, and 2) the system's evidence against_bel itself (_hel.s-attack).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 187,
"end": 195,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "4.2,1 Selecting the Focus of Modification",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Select-Focus-Modification determines whether to attack _bel's supporting evidence separately, thereby eliminating the user's reasons for holding ..b\u00a2l, to atta~ ..bel itself, or both. However, in evainating the effectiveness of attacking the proposed evidence for.bel, the system must determine whether or not it is possible to successfully refute a piece of evidence (i.e., whether or not the system believes that sufficient evidence is available to convince the user that a piece of proposed evidence is invalid), and if so, whether it is mote effective to attack the evidence itself or its support. Thus the algorithm recursively applies itself to the evidence proposed as support for _bel which was not accepted by the system (step 3). In this recursive process, the algorithm annotates each unaccepted belief or evidential relationship proposed to support _bel with its focus of modification (-beli.focus) and the system's evidence against it (_beli.s-attack). _bell.focus contains the beliefs selected to be addressed in order to change the user's belief about ..beli, and its value will be nil if the system predicts that insufficient evidence is available to change the user's belief about -bell.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "4.2,1 Selecting the Focus of Modification",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Based on the information obtained in step 3, Select. Focus-Modification decides whether to attack the evidence proposed to support _bel, or _bel itself (step 4). Its preference is to address the unaccepted evidence, be- If Predkt(.bel, _bel.u-evid -cand-set) = --,.~l (i.e., the user's disbelief in all unaecepted evidence which . the system can refute will cause him to reject _bel), min-set ~-Select-Mtu-Set(_bel,cand-set) ..bel.focus ~-U_bel~ \u00a2_min-set ..beli.focus",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "4.2,1 Selecting the Focus of Modification",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Else if Predlct(.bel, ..bel.u-evid + .bel.s-attack) = -,.bel (i.e., the system's evidence against .bel will cause the user to reject _bel), .bel.focus ~--. McKeown's focusing rules suggest that continuing a newly introduced topic (about which there is more to be said) is preferable to returning to a previous topic OVIcKcown, 1985) . Thus the algorithm first considers whether or not attacking the user's support for ..bel is sufficient to convince him of--,-bel (step 4.2). It does so by gathering (in cand-set) evidence proposed by the user as direct support for _bel but which was not accepted by the system and which the system predicts it can successfully refute (i.e., =beli.focus is not nil). The algorithm then hypothesizes that the user has changed his mind about each belief in cand-set and predicts how this will affect the user's belief about .bel (step 4.2). If the user is predicted to accept --,..bel under this hypothesis, the algorithm invokes Select-Min-Set to select a minimum subset of cand-set as the unaccepted beliefs that it would actually pursue, and the focus of modification (..bel.focus) will be the union of the focus for each of the beliefs in this minimum subset.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 316,
"end": 332,
"text": "OVIcKcown, 1985)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "//Check if addressing .bel itself is s~fcient",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "If attacking the evidence for _bel does not appear to be sufficient to convince the user of -~_bel, the algorithm checks whether directly attacking _bel will accomplish this goal. If providing evidence directly against _bel is predicted to be successful, then the focus of modification is _bcl itself (step 4.3). If directly attacking _bel is also predicted to fail, the algorithm considers the effect of attacking both ..bel and its unaccepted proposed evidence by combining the previous two prediction processes (step 4.4). If the combined evidence is still predicted to fail, the system does not have sufficient evidence to change the user's view of_bel; thus, the focus of modification for .bel is nil (step 4.5). 7 Notice that steps 2 and 4 of the algorithm invoke a function, Predict, that makes use of the belief revision mechanism (Galliers, 1992) discussed in Section 4.1 to predict the user's acceptance or unacceptance of..bel based on the system's knowledge of the user's beliefs and the evidence that could be presented to him (Logan et al., 1994) . The result of Select-Focus-Modification is a set of user beliefs (in _bel.focus) that need to be modified in order to change the user's belief about the unaccepted top-level belief. Thus, the negations of these beliefs will be posted by the system as mutual beliefs to be achieved in order to perform the Mod/fy actions.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1040,
"end": 1060,
"text": "(Logan et al., 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "//Check if addressing .bel itself is s~fcient",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "Studies in communication and social psychology have shown that evidence improves the persuasiveness of a message (Luchok and McCroskey, 1978; Reynolds and Burgoon, 1983; Petty and Cacioppo, 1984; Hampie, 1985) . Research on the quantity of evidence indicates that there is no optimal amount of evidence, but that the use of high-quality evidence is consistent with persuasive effects (Reinard, 1988) . On the other hand, Cn'ice's maxim of quantity (Grice, 1975) specifies that one should not contribute more information than is required, s Thus, it is important that a collaborative agent selects suffmient and effective, but not excessive, evidence to justify an intended mutual belief.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 141,
"text": "(Luchok and McCroskey, 1978;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 169,
"text": "Reynolds and Burgoon, 1983;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 195,
"text": "Petty and Cacioppo, 1984;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 209,
"text": "Hampie, 1985)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 384,
"end": 399,
"text": "(Reinard, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 448,
"end": 461,
"text": "(Grice, 1975)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Selecting Justification for a Claim",
"sec_num": "4.2.2"
},
{
"text": "To convince the user ofa belief,_bel, our system selects appropriate justification by identifying beliefs that could 7In collaborative dialogues, an agent should reject a proposal only ff she has strong evidence against it. When an agent does not have sufficient information to determine the acceptance of a proposal, she should initiate an information-sharing subdialogue to share information with the other agent and reevaluate the proposal (Chu-Carroll and Carberry, 1995) . Thus, further research is needed to determine whether or not the focus of modification for a rejected belief will ever be nil in collaborative dialogues.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 443,
"end": 475,
"text": "(Chu-Carroll and Carberry, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Selecting Justification for a Claim",
"sec_num": "4.2.2"
},
{
"text": "sWalker (1994) has shown the importance of IRU's Odormationally Redundant Utterances) in efficient discourse. We leave including appropriate IRU's for future work. be used to support_bel and applying filtering heuristics to them. The system must first determine wbether justification for_bel is needed by predicting whether or not merely informing the user of _bel will be sufficient to convince him of _bel. If so, no justification will be presented. If justification is predicted to be necessary, the system will first construct the justification chains that could be used to support _bel. For each piece of evidence t~t could be used to directly support ..bel, the system first predicts whether the user will accept the evidence without justification. If the user is predicted not to accept a piece of evidence (evidi), the system will augment the evidence to be presented to the user by posting evidi as a mutual belief to be achieved, and selecting propositions that could serve as justification for it. This results in a recursive process that returns a chain of belief justifications that could be used to support.bel.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 14,
"text": "(1994)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Selecting Justification for a Claim",
"sec_num": "4.2.2"
},
{
"text": "Once a set of beliefs forming justification chains is identified, the system must then select from this set those belief chains which, when presented to the user, are predicted to convince the user of .bel. Our system will first construct a singleton set for each such justification chain and select the sets containing justification which, when presented, is predicted to convince the user of _bel. If no single justification chain is predicted to be sufficient to change the nser's beliefs, new sets will be constructed by combining the single justification chains, and the selection ~ is repeated. This will produce a set of possible candidate justification chains, and three heuristics will then be applied to select from among them. The first heuristic prefers evidence in which the system is most confident since high-quality evidence produces more attitude change than any other evidence form (Luchok and McCroskey, 1978) . Furthermore, the system can better justify a belief in which it has high confidence should the user not accept it. The second heuristic prefers evidence that is novel to the user, since studies have shown that evidence is most persuasive ff it is previously unknown to the hearer (Wyer, 1970; Morley, 1987) . The third heuristic is based on C.nice's maxim of quantity and prefers justification chains that contain the fewest beliefs.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 900,
"end": 928,
"text": "(Luchok and McCroskey, 1978)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 1211,
"end": 1223,
"text": "(Wyer, 1970;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF36"
},
{
"start": 1224,
"end": 1237,
"text": "Morley, 1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Selecting Justification for a Claim",
"sec_num": "4.2.2"
},
{
"text": "After the evaluation of the di~ogue model in Figure 1 , Modify-Proposal is invoked because the top-level proposed belief is not accepted. In selecting the focus of modification, the system will first identify the candidate foci tree and then invoke the Select-Focus-Modification algorithm on the belief at the root node of the candidate foci tree. The candidate foci tree will be identical to the proposed belief tree in Figure 1 since both the top-level proposed belief and its proposed evidence were rejected during the evaluation process. This indicates that the focus of modification could be either -~Teaches (Smith,AI) or On-Sabbatical(Smith, next year) (since the evidential relationship between them was accepted). When Select-Focus-Modification is applied to --,Teaches (Smith,Al) , the algorithm will first be recursively invoked on On-Sabbatical(Smith, next year) to determine the focus for modifying the child belief (step 3.1 in Figure 3 ). Since the system has two pieces of evidence against On-Sabbatical(Smith, next year), 1) a warranted piece of evidence containing Postponed-Sabbatical(Smittg1997) and supports ( Postponed-Sabbatical(Smith,1997) ,-,On-Sabbatical(Smith, next year)), and 2) a strong piece of evidence containing --,visitor(Smith, IBM, next year) and supports (-,visitor(Smith, IBM, next year) ,-,On-Sabbatical(Smith, next year)), the evidence is predicted to be sufficient to change the user's belief in On-Sabbatical(Smith, next year) , and hence -,Teaches (Smith, A1) ; thus, the focus of modification will be On-Sabbatical(Smith, next year). The Correct-Node specialization of Modify-Proposal will be invoked since the focus of modification is a belief, and in order to satisfy the precondition of Modify.Node (Figure 2 ), MB( S, U, -~ On-Sabbatical(Smith, next year)) will be posted as a mutual belief to be achieved.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 614,
"end": 624,
"text": "(Smith,AI)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 779,
"end": 789,
"text": "(Smith,Al)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 843,
"end": 874,
"text": "On-Sabbatical(Smith, next year)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1083,
"end": 1115,
"text": "Postponed-Sabbatical(Smittg1997)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1129,
"end": 1163,
"text": "( Postponed-Sabbatical(Smith,1997)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1246,
"end": 1279,
"text": "--,visitor(Smith, IBM, next year)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1293,
"end": 1326,
"text": "(-,visitor(Smith, IBM, next year)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1438,
"end": 1469,
"text": "On-Sabbatical(Smith, next year)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 53,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
},
{
"start": 421,
"end": 429,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
},
{
"start": 942,
"end": 950,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1492,
"end": 1503,
"text": "(Smith, A1)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
},
{
"start": 1747,
"end": 1756,
"text": "(Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Example",
"sec_num": "4.2.3"
},
{
"text": "Since the user has a warranted belief in On-Sabbatical(Smith, next year) ('indicated by the semantic form of utterance (3)), the system will predict th~ merely informing the user of the intended mutual belief is not sufficient to change his belief; therefore R will select justificatkm from the two available pieces of evidence supporting -,On.Sabbatical(Smith, next year) presented earlier. The system will predict that either piece of evidence combined with the proposed mutual belief is sufficient to change the user's belief; thus, the filtering heuristics are applied. The first heuristic will cause the system to select Postponed.Sabbatical(Smith, 1997) and supports (Postponed-Sabbatical(Smith, 1997) ,-,On-Sabbatical(Smith, next year)) as support, since it is the evidence in which the system is more confident.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 626,
"end": 659,
"text": "Postponed.Sabbatical(Smith, 1997)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 673,
"end": 707,
"text": "(Postponed-Sabbatical(Smith, 1997)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Example",
"sec_num": "4.2.3"
},
{
"text": "The system will try to establish the mutual beliefs 9 as an attempt to satisfy the precondition of Modify-Node. This will cause the system to invoke Inform cKscourse actions to generate the following utterances:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Example",
"sec_num": "4.2.3"
},
{
"text": "(4) S: Dr. Smith is not going on sabbatical next year. 5He postponed his sabbatical until 199Z",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Example",
"sec_num": "4.2.3"
},
{
"text": "If the user accepts the system's utterances, thus satisfying the precondition that the conflict be resolved, Modify-Node can be performed and changes made to the original proposed beliefs. Otherwise, the user may propose mod-9Only MB ( S, U, Postponed-Sabbatical( Smith, 1997) ) will be proposed as justification because the system believes that the evidential relationship needed to complete the inference is held by a stereotypical user. ifications to the system's proposed modifications, resulting in an embedded negotiation sub4iaJogue.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 234,
"end": 276,
"text": "( S, U, Postponed-Sabbatical( Smith, 1997)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Example",
"sec_num": "4.2.3"
},
{
"text": "This paper has presented a computational strategy for engaging in collaborative negotiation to square away conflicts in agents' beliefs. The model captures features specific to collaborative negotiation. It also suppom effective and efficient dialogues by identifying the focus of modification based on its predicted success in resolving the conflict about the top-level belief and by using heuristics motivated by research in social psychology to select a set of evidence to justify the proposed modification of beliefs. Furthermore, by capturing collaborative negotiation in a cycle of Propose-Evaluate-Modify actions, the evaluation and modification processes can be applied re, cursively to capture embedded negotiation subdialogues.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "5"
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "Discussions with Candy Sidner, Stephanie Elzer, and Kathy McCoy have been very helpful in the development of this work. Comments from the anonymous reviewers have also been very useful in preparing the final version of this paper.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Discourse structure in the TRAINS project",
"authors": [
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [],
"last": "Allen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Darpa Speech and Natural Language Workshop",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "James Allen. 1991. Discourse structure in the TRAINS project. In Darpa Speech and Natural Language Work- shop.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Towards an AI model of argumentation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Margot",
"middle": [],
"last": "Flowexs",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rod",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mcguire",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1980,
"venue": "Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "313--315",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Margot Flowexs, and Rod McGuire. 1980. Towards an AI model of argumentation. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 313-315.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Revising befiefs and intentions: A unified framework for agent interaction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alison",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cawsey",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Julia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Galliers",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Brian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Logan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Steven",
"middle": [
"Reec"
],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Karen",
"middle": [
"Sparck"
],
"last": "Jones",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "The Ninth Biennial Conference of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "130--139",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alison Cawsey, Julia Galliers, Brian Logan, Steven Reec.e, and Karen Sparck Jones. 1993. Revising be- fiefs and intentions: A unified framework for agent interaction. In The Ninth Biennial Conference of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Sim- ulation of Behaviour, pages 130-139.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "A planbased model for response generation in collaborative task-oriented dialogues",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jennifer",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "-",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carroll",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sandra",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carberry",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "799--805",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jennifer Chu-Carroll and Sandra Carberry. 1994. A plan- based model for response generation in collaborative task-oriented dialogues. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 799-805.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Generating information-sharing subdialognes in expert-user consultation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jennifer",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "-",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carroll",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sandra",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carberry",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jennifer Chu-Carroll and Sandra Carberry. 1995. Gener- ating information-sharing subdialognes in expert-user consultation. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. To appear.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "A Plan-BasedModelforResponse Generation in Collaborative Consultation Di. alogues",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jennifer",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chu-Carroll",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jennifer Chu-Carroll. 1995. A Plan-BasedModelforRe- sponse Generation in Collaborative Consultation Di. alogues. Ph.D. thesis, University of Delaware. Forth- coming.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Heuristic Reasoning about Uncertainty: An Artificial Intelligence Approach",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Paul",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cohen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Paul R. Cohen. 1985. Heuristic Reasoning about Un- certainty: An Artificial Intelligence Approach. Pitman Publishing Company.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Analyzing the structure of argumentative discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Robin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cohen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "ComputationalLinguistcis",
"volume": "13",
"issue": "1-2",
"pages": "11--24",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Robin Cohen. 1987. Analyzing the structure of argu- mentative discourse. ComputationalLinguistcis, 13(1- 2): 11-24, January-June.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Transcripts derived from audiotape conversations made at Columbia University",
"authors": [],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Columbia University Transcripts. 1985. Transcripts de- rived from audiotape conversations made at Columbia University, New York, NY. Provided by Kathleen McKeown.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Autonomous belief revision and communication",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Julia",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Galliers",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Gardenfors, editor, BeliefRevision",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Julia R. Galliers. 1992. Autonomous belief revision and communication. In Gardenfors, editor, BeliefRevision. Cambridge University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Logic and conversation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Paul",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grice",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1975,
"venue": "Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "41--58",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "H. Paul Grice. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, editors, Syntax and Seman- tics 3: Speech Acts, pages 41-58. Academic Press, Inc., New York.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Plans for discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Barbara",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Caadace",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Grosz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sidner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Intentions in Communication",
"volume": "20",
"issue": "",
"pages": "417--444",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Barbara J. Grosz and Caadace L. Sidner. 1990. Plans for discourse. In Cohen, Morgan, and Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication, chapter 20, pages 417- 444. MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Refinements on the cognitive model of argument: Concreteness, involvement and group scores",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dale",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hample",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "The Western Journal of Speech Communication",
"volume": "49",
"issue": "",
"pages": "267--285",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dale Hample. 1985. Refinements on the cognitive model of argument: Concreteness, involvement and group scores. The Western Journal of Speech Communica- tion, 49:267-285.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Mutual beliefs in questionanswer systems",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Aravind",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "181--197",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Aravind K. Joshi. 1982. Mutual beliefs in question- answer systems. In N.V. Smith, editor, Mutual Knowl- edge, chapter 4, pages 181-197. Academic Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "A tripartite plan-based model of dialogue",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Lynn",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lambert",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sandra",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carberry",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "47--54",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lynn Lambert and Sandra Carberry. 1991. A tripartite plan-based model of dialogue. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, pages 47-54.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Belief revision and dialogue management in information retrieval",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Brian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Logan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Steven",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reece",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Alison",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cawsey",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Julia Galtiers, and Karen Sparck Jones",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Brian Logan, Steven Reece, Alison Cawsey, Julia Gal- tiers, and Karen Sparck Jones. 1994. Belief revision and dialogue management in information retrieval. Technical Report 339, University of Cambridge, Com- puter Lalx)ratory.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "The effect of quality of evidence on attitude change and source credibility",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joseph",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Luchok",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mccroskey",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1978,
"venue": "The Southern Speech Communication Journal",
"volume": "43",
"issue": "",
"pages": "371--383",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Joseph A. Luchok and James C. McCroskey. 1978. The effect of quality of evidence on attitude change and source credibility. The Southern Speech Communica- tion Journal, 43:371-383.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Communicative acts for generating natural language arguments",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mark",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Maybury",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "357--364",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mark T. Maybury. 1993. Communicative acts for gen- erating natural language arguments. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 357-364.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Text Generation : Using Discourse Strategies and Focus Constraints to Generate Natural Language Text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kathleen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mckeown",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kathleen R. McKeown. 1985. Text Generation : Using Discourse Strategies and Focus Constraints to Gen- erate Natural Language Text. Cambridge University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Subjective message constructs: A theory of persuasion",
"authors": [
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Donaldd",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Morley",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Conmmnication Monographs",
"volume": "54",
"issue": "",
"pages": "183--203",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "DonaldD. Morley. 1987. Subjective message constructs: A theory of persuasion. Conmmnication Monographs, 54:183-203.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Petty",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [
"T"
],
"last": "Cacioppo",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1984,
"venue": "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology",
"volume": "46",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "69--81",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo. 1984. The ef- fects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persua- sion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1):69-81.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "A model of plan inference that distinguishes between the beliefs of actors and observers",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Martha",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Pollack",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "207--214",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Martha E. Pollack. 1986. A model of plan inference that distinguishes between the beliefs of actors and ob- servers. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 207-214.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Arguing about planning alternatives",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alex",
"middle": [],
"last": "Quilici",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "906--910",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alex Quilici. 1992. Arguing about planning alternatives. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 906-910.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Modeling informal debates",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Rachel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reichman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1981,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "19--24",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rachel Reichman. 1981. Modeling informal debates. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 19-24.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "The empirical study of the persuasive effects of evidence, the status after fifty years of research",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "John",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reinard",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Human Communication Research",
"volume": "15",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "3--59",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "John C. Reinard. 1988. The empirical study of the per- suasive effects of evidence, the status after fifty years of research. Human Communication Research, 15(1):3- 59.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "Belief processing, reasoning, and evidence",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rodaey",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reynolds",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Burgoon",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "Bostrom",
"volume": "7",
"issue": "",
"pages": "83--104",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rodaey A. Reynolds and Michael Burgoon. 1983. Be- lief processing, reasoning, and evidence. In Bostrom, editor, Communication Yearbook 7, chapter 4, pages 83-104. Sage Publications.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "Using discourse to negotiate in collaborative activity: An artificial language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Candace",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sidner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "AAA-92 Workshop: Cooperation Among Heterogeneous Intelligent Systems",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "121--128",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Candace L. Sidner. 1992. Using discourse to negotiate in collaborative activity: An artificial language. In AAA-92 Workshop: Cooperation Among Heteroge- neous Intelligent Systems, pages 121-128.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "An artificial discourse language for collaborative negotiation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Candace",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Sidner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "814--819",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Candace L. Sidner. 1994. An artificial discourse lan- guage for collaborative negotiation. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, pages 814-819.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "Transcripts derived from audiotape conversations made at SRI International",
"authors": [
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ski Transcripts",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "SKI Transcripts. 1992. Transcripts derived from audio- tape conversations made at SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared by Jacqueline Kowtko under the direction of Patti Price.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF30": {
"ref_id": "b30",
"title": "Argumentation: Planning other agents' plans",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Katia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sycara",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Proceedings of the l l th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "517--523",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Katia Sycara. 1989. Argumentation: Planning other agents' plans. In Proceedings of the l l th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 517- 523.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF31": {
"ref_id": "b31",
"title": "Mixed initiative in dialogue: An investigation into discourse segmentation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Marflyn",
"middle": [],
"last": "Walker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Steve",
"middle": [],
"last": "Whinak~",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "70--78",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marflyn Walker and Steve Whinak~. 1990. Mixed ini- tiative in dialogue: An investigation into discourse seg- mentation. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 70-78.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF32": {
"ref_id": "b32",
"title": "Redundancy in collaborative dialogue",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Marilyn",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Walker",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "345--351",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marilyn A. Walker. 1992. Redundancy in collaborative dialogue. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 345- 351.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF33": {
"ref_id": "b33",
"title": "Discourse and deliberation: Testing a collaborative strategy",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Marilyn",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Walker",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marilyn A. Walker. 1994. Discourse and deliberation: Testing a collaborative strategy. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF34": {
"ref_id": "b34",
"title": "Taking the initiative in natural language data base interactions: Justifying why",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Atavind",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "Proceedings of COLING-82",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "413--418",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bonnie Webber and Atavind Joshi. 1982. Taking the initiative in natural language data base interactions: Justifying why. In Proceedings of COLING-82, pages 413-418.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF35": {
"ref_id": "b35",
"title": "Cues and control in expert-client dialogues",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Steve",
"middle": [],
"last": "Whittaker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Phil",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stenton",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "123--130",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Steve Whittaker and Phil Stenton. 1988. Cues and con- trol in expert-client dialogues. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, pages 123-130.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF36": {
"ref_id": "b36",
"title": "Information redundancy, inconsistency, and novelty and their role in impression formation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Wyer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jr",
"middle": [],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1970,
"venue": "Journal of Experimental Social Psychology",
"volume": "6",
"issue": "",
"pages": "111--127",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Robert S. Wyer, Jr. 1970. Information redundancy, in- consistency, and novelty and their role in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol- ogy, 6:111-127.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF37": {
"ref_id": "b37",
"title": "Towards a principled representation of discourse plans",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Young",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Johanna",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Moore",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martha",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Pollack",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "946--951",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Michael Young, Johanna D. Moore, and Martha E. Pollack. 1994. Towards a principled representation of discourse plans. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 946-951.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Belief and Discourse Levels for",
"uris": null,
"num": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "(_s I, .s2, .propow, d) Decomposition believe(_s 1,--acceptable(..node)) believe(_s2, acceptable(_node)) error-in-plan(_node,..proposed) Modify-Node(..s l,_s2,_proposed,..node) Insert-Correction(.s 1, ..s2, _proposed) accoptable(_proposed) Modify-Node(..s I ,..s2,.4noposed,.suxle) Specialization believe( .s 1, .-,acceptable( ...node ) ) believe(.s2,-,acceptable(_node)) Remove-Node(_sl,_s2,_proposed,..node) Alter-Node(.s l,_s2,.proposed,.node) mod~ed(.proposed)",
"uris": null,
"num": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "bel 4.4 //Check if addressing both .l~el and its unaccepted evidence is s~Ofcient Else if Predkt(..bel, _bel.s-attaek + .bel.u-evidcanal-set) = -,_bet, rain-set +--Select-Mln-Set(.beL cand-set + _bel) .bel.focus +--U.beli~dnin-set ..beli.focus U .bel 4.5 Else _bel.focus +--nil Figure 3: Selecting the Focus of Modification cause",
"uris": null,
"num": null
},
"TABREF0": {
"type_str": "table",
"text": ". ......................................................................... J",
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>(Smi~ I</td><td>i ,',</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">[Tell('O,S,-Teaches(Smith,AI))] [Address-Acceplance ~i ~'</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">[ I~\u00b0'm(U,S,O\"-S~ic~(Smith,~= Ye'O) k~\"</td></tr><tr><td>[ TeU(U,S,On-S~,t,~(Smith,~xt y~0) I</td><td/></tr><tr><td>Dr. Smith is not teaching AL</td><td/></tr><tr><td>Dr. Smith is going on sablmutical next year.</td><td/></tr></table>",
"num": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"type_str": "table",
"text": ".u-evid +--system's beliefs about the user's evidence pertaining to _bel _bel.s-attack 4-system's own evidence against _bel 2. If _bel is a leaf node in the candidate foci tree, 2.1 If Predict(_bel, _bel.u-evid + _bel.s-attack) = -~_bel then _bel.focus ,--.bel; return 2.2 Else .bel.focus t-nil; return 3. Select focus for each of .bel's children in the candidate foci tree, .belx ..... .",
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>.bel,~:</td></tr><tr><td>3.1 If supports(_beli,_bel) is accepted but .beli is not,</td></tr><tr><td>Select-Focus-Modlficatioa(.bel~ ).</td></tr><tr><td>3.2 Else if .beli is accepted but supports(_beli,.bel) is</td></tr><tr><td>not, Sdect-Focus-Modlficatlon(.beli,.bel).</td></tr><tr><td>3.3 Else Select-Focu-Modificatioa(.bel~) and Select-</td></tr><tr><td>Focus-Modification( supports(_beli ,.bel))</td></tr><tr><td>4. Choose between attacking the Woposed evidence for .bel</td></tr><tr><td>and attacking ..bel itself:</td></tr><tr><td>4.1 eand-set ~--{..beli I .beli E unaccepted user evidence</td></tr><tr><td>for _bel A ..beli.focus ~ nil}</td></tr><tr><td>4.2 //Check if addressing _bol's unaccepted evidence is</td></tr><tr><td>suffu:ient</td></tr></table>",
"num": null
}
}
}
} |