Dialogue Modeling. Task-Oriented Dialogues  Online appointment manager –Schedules and co-ordinates meetings between people User : Can you schedule a.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Artificial Intelligence
Advertisements

Computer Science CPSC 322 Lecture 25 Top Down Proof Procedure (Ch 5.2.2)
Automated Reasoning Systems For first order Predicate Logic.
Topic 10: conversational implicature Introduction to Semantics.
René Descartes ( ) Father of modern rationalism. Reason is the source of knowledge, not experience. All our ideas are innate. God fashioned us.
Verificationism and religious language Michael Lacewing
ISBN Chapter 3 Describing Syntax and Semantics.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Department of Computer Science and Engineering CSCE 580 Artificial Intelligence Ch.6 [P]: Reasoning Under Uncertainty Section.
Process Modeling Calgary 2004 Prof.Dr.Michael M. Richter Chapter 4 Explanations.
CSE (c) S. Tanimoto, 2008 Propositional Logic
Introduction to Semantics To be able to reason about the meanings of utterances, we need to have ways of representing the meanings of utterances. A formal.
1 Lecture 34 Introduction to Knowledge Representation & Expert Systems Overview  Lecture Objective  Introduction to Knowledge Representation  Knowledge.
PPA 501 – Analytical Methods in Administration Lecture 1d – Selecting a Research Topic.
CSCI 5582 Fall 2006 CSCI 5582 Artificial Intelligence Lecture 9 Jim Martin.
Presentation on Formalising Speech Acts (Course: Formal Logic)
Let remember from the previous lesson what is Knowledge representation
Describing Syntax and Semantics
Logical and Rule-Based Reasoning Part I. Logical Models and Reasoning Big Question: Do people think logically?
IE398 - lecture 10 SSM in detail
Part 2 Module 3 Arguments and deductive reasoning Logic is a formal study of the process of reasoning, or using common sense. Deductive reasoning involves.
Can Big Questions Be Begged?. Fallacies are mistakes in inference, BUT Begging the question is not a mistake in inference. Is it a fallacy at all? Robinson.
Artificial Intelligence: Definition “... the branch of computer science that is concerned with the automation of intelligent behavior.” (Luger, 2009) “The.
Theories of Discourse and Dialogue. Discourse Any set of connected sentences This set of sentences gives context to the discourse Some language phenomena.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
EEL 5937 Agent communication EEL 5937 Multi Agent Systems Lecture 10, Feb. 6, 2003 Lotzi Bölöni.
MIDTERM EXAMINATION THE MIDTERM EXAMINATION WILL BE ON FRIDAY, MAY 2, IN THIS CLASSROOM, STARTING AT 1:00 P.M. BRING A BLUE BOOK. THE EXAM WILL COVER:
Slide 1 Propositional Definite Clause Logic: Syntax, Semantics and Bottom-up Proofs Jim Little UBC CS 322 – CSP October 20, 2014.
Politeness & Speaking Style Discourse & Dialogue CS 359 November 15, 2001.
Artificial Intelligence: Natural Language
Pragmatics 1 Ling400. What is pragmatics? Pragmatics is the study of language use.Pragmatics is the study of language use. Intuitive understanding of.
Simultaneously Learning and Filtering Juan F. Mancilla-Caceres CS498EA - Fall 2011 Some slides from Connecting Learning and Logic, Eyal Amir 2006.
Probability Course web page: vision.cis.udel.edu/cv March 19, 2003  Lecture 15.
Standards Of Textuality And Speech Acts.
Automated Reasoning Early AI explored how to automated several reasoning tasks – these were solved by what we might call weak problem solving methods as.
Automated Reasoning Early AI explored how to automate several reasoning tasks – these were solved by what we might call weak problem solving methods as.
ACE TESOL Diploma Program – London Language Institute OBJECTIVES You will understand: 1. The terminology and concepts of semantics, pragmatics and discourse.
Presentation about pragmatic concepts Implicatures Presuppositions
Computer Science CPSC 322 Lecture 22 Logical Consequences, Proof Procedures (Ch 5.2.2)
What makes communication by language possible? “What makes the task [of understanding others] practicable at all is the structure the normative character.
Logic: Proof procedures, soundness and correctness CPSC 322 – Logic 2 Textbook §5.2 March 7, 2011.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 1-b What is Philosophy? (Part 2) By David Kelsey.
Albert Gatt LIN3021 Formal Semantics Lecture 3. Aims This lecture is divided into two parts: 1. We make our first attempts at formalising the notion of.
Artificial Intelligence Chapter 23 Multiple Agents Biointelligence Lab School of Computer Sci. & Eng. Seoul National University.
EEL 5937 Content languages EEL 5937 Multi Agent Systems Lecture 10, Feb. 6, 2003 Lotzi Bölöni.
SPEECH ACTS Saying as Doing See R. Nofsinger, Everyday Conversation, Sage, 1991.
CSC3315 (Spring 2009)1 CSC 3315 Languages & Compilers Hamid Harroud School of Science and Engineering, Akhawayn University
Dialogue Modeling 2. Indirect Requests “Can I have a cup of coffee?”  One approach to dealing with these kinds of requests is by plan-based inference.
1. Free Will and Determinism Determinism: given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.
5 Lecture in math Predicates Induction Combinatorics.
March 3, 2016Introduction to Artificial Intelligence Lecture 12: Knowledge Representation & Reasoning I 1 Back to “Serious” Topics… Knowledge Representation.
From Pyrrhonian Skepticism to Justification for Belief.
Loops Brent M. Dingle Texas A&M University Chapter 6 – Section 6.3 Multiway Branches (and some from Mastering Turbo Pascal 5.5, 3 rd Edition by Tom Swan)
Artificial Intelligence Logical Agents Chapter 7.
Knowledge Representation Lecture 2 out of 5. Last Week Intelligence needs knowledge We need to represent this knowledge in a way a computer can process.
Figurative Language Understanding: A Special Process?
Lecture 1 – Formal Logic.
The Propositional Calculus
Discourse and Pragmatics
Titanic Unit Vocabulary
Nofsinger. R., Everyday Conversation, Sage, 1991
Back to “Serious” Topics…
Significance Tests: The Basics
Introduction to Logic Lecture 1 What is Critical Reasoning?
My Performance Appraisal How to write SMART objectives
Search techniques.
This Lecture Substitution model
Logical and Rule-Based Reasoning Part I
Nofsinger. R., Everyday Conversation, Sage, 1991
Representations & Reasoning Systems (RRS) (2.2)
Presentation transcript:

Dialogue Modeling

Task-Oriented Dialogues  Online appointment manager –Schedules and co-ordinates meetings between people User : Can you schedule a meeting with John on Tuesday? System : John is free from 2pm to 4pm. User : How about Thursday? System : 10am? User : Fine, thanks.

How could the system work?  How can it understand the requests?  What knowledge does it need?  What reasoning must it do?

Plan-based Inference  Use knowledge about people and about the nature of requests to conduct the dialogue  Use predicate logic to perform the inference, and direct the dialogue

Lecture Outline 1. Intuition behind reasoning 2. Formal definitions of belief and desire in predicate calculus 3. Inference rules for belief and desire 4. Work through the process for the first line of the dialogue!

Indirect Requests “Can you schedule a meeting with John on Tuesday?”  There are many other ways to make the same request: –“Can I meet with John on Tuesday?” [ question the ability to perform the action] –“I want to meet John on Tuesday.” [ mention the speaker’s desire to perform the action.]

Top-Level intuition  A request is made, whose surface level interpretation doesn’t make sense according to Grice’s Maxims. It can only be interpreted as really representing a deeper indirect dialogue act. “Can I go to the bathroom”

Detailed Reasoning “Can you schedule a meeting with John on Tuesday?” 1. X has asked a question about whether I have the ability to perform an action 2. I assume that X is being cooperative, and his utterance has some aim. 3. X knows I can perform the action, and there is no alternative explanation for interest in my theoretical abilities.

Detailed Reasoning … 4. Therefore, X probably has some other illuctionary motive. 5. A preparatory condition for a directive is that the hearer be able to perform the action. 6. X has asked whether I am prepared for the action of scheduling appointments. 7. We are in a dialogue where scheduling appointments is a common action. 8. Therefore, X wants to schedule an appointment.

But this is informal… How can we formalize this line of reasoning?

Lecture Outline 1. Intuition behind reasoning 2. Formal definitions of belief and desire in predicate calculus 3. Inference rules for belief and desire 4. Work through the process for the first line of the dialogue!

Propositional Logic  Informally, –Variables either true or false –Connected with and (^), or (V), not (~), Implies (->) –Example formulas  A ^ B (A and B)  (A ^ B) -> (A V B)

Predicate Calculus  Functions introduced : –E.g. Happy(A)  New operators : –forall, exists  Allows statements like –exists(a) : happy(a)  There exists someone who is happy –forall(x) : grad_student(x) -> coffee_addict(x)  All grad students are coffee addicts

What needs to be modeled?  S believes p –B(S,P)  S knows P –Know(S,P) = P ^ B(S,P)  S knows whether P –KnowIF(S,P) = Know(S,P) V Know(S,~P)  S wants A –W(S,P) e.g. P = ACT(H)

Exploring the model…  Two actors H(earer) and S(peaker) –W(H,B(S,P)) = H wants S to believe P  an act of convincing –Schedule(H,S,X) = the hearer schedules S for an appoint at X time –KnowIf(H,S,CanDo(X)) = hearer knows whether the Speaker can do something –InformIf(H,S,X) = hearer informs the speaker whether X is true or not true –S.Request(S,H,X) = speaker makes a direct request of the hearer

Surface Meaning in Predicate Logic  So for the statement –“Can you schedule a meeting with John on Tuesday?”  The predicate logic form would be : S.Request(S,H,InformIf(H,S,CanDo(H,Schedule(X))))

So how do we get to the deeper meaning – The Indirect Request

Lecture Outline 1. Intuition behind reasoning 2. Formal definitions of belief and desire in predicate calculus 3. Inference rules for belief and desire 4. Work through the process for the first line of the dialogue!

Action Schema  ScheduleMeeting(A,B,T,D) –Constraints : Person(A) ^ Person(B) ^ TimeOfDay(T) ^ Day(D) ^ Building(Q) –Precondition : Free(A,T,D) ^ Free(A,T,D) ^ HasRoom(Q) –Effect : ~Free(A,T,D) ^ ~Free(A,T,D) –Body : BookRoom(T,D)

Relevant Speech Acts for Indirect Speech 1  Inform(S,H,P) : informs the hearer by causing the hearer to believe that the speaker wants them to know something –Constraints : Speaker(A) ^ Hearer(H) ^ Proposition(P) –Precondition : Know(S,P) ^ W(S,Inform(S,H,P) –Effect : Know(H,P) –Body : B(H, W(S,Know(H,P)))

Relevant Speech Acts for Indirect Requests 2  InformIF(S,H,P) used to inform the hearer whether a proposition is true or not –Constraints : Speaker(S) ^ Hearer(H) ^ Proposition(P) –Precondition : Know(S,P) ^ W(S,InformIF(S,H,P) –Effect : KnowIf(H,P) –Body : B(H, W(S, KnowIf(H,P)))

Relevant Speech Acts for Indirect Requests 3  Request(S,H,ACT) directive speech act requesting an action be performed –Constraints : Speaker(S) ^ Hearer(H) ^ Act(A) ^ H is an agent of ACT –Precondition : W(S,Act(H)) –Effect : W(H,Act(H)) –Body : B(H,W(S,Act(H)))

 Started from “Can you schedule a meeting with John on Tuesday” Now must go from : S.Request(S,H,InformIf(H,S,CanDo(H,Schedule(X))) Request(S,H,Schedule(X)) But How?

Specialized Dialogue “Plausible” Inference Rules  PI.AE : If Y is an effect of action X, and H believes that S wants X done, then it is plausible that H believes S wants Y to be true  PI.PA : If X is a precondition of action Y, and H believes S wants X to obtain, then plausible that H believes S wants Y to be done

Specialized Dialogue “Plausible” Inference Rules (cont.)  PI.BA : If X is part of the body of Y,and H believes S wants X done, then plausible that S wants Y done  PI.KP : If H believes S wants to KnowIF(P) then H believes S wants P to be true  E1.I – these rules can be combined recursively

Lecture Outline 1. Intuition behind reasoning 2. Formal definitions of belief and desire in predicate calculus 3. Inference rules for belief and desire 4. Work through the process for the first line of the dialogue!

We start with…  S.Request(S,H,InformIf(H,S,CanDo(H, Schedule(X))) –Speaker is requestion to know if the hearer is able to perform the scheduling job  Then use PI.AE –B(H,W(S, InformIf(H,S,(CanDo(H, Schedule(X))) –The hearer believes that S wants the hearer to inform whether or not the hearer can carry out the scheduling task

 B(H,W(S, InformIf(H,S,(CanDo(H, Schedule(X)))  Now PI.AE (again) –B(H,W(S,KnowIf(H,S,(CanDo(H, Schedule(X))) –The hearer believes that S wants to know whether or not the hearer can carry out the scheduling task

 B(H,W(S,KnowIf(H,S,(CanDo(H, Schedule(X)))  PI.KP –B(H,W(S,CanDo(H,Schedule(X))) –Hearer believes that the speaker wants the hearer to be able to do the task –(otherwise the speaker wouldn’t ask about it)

 B(H,W(S,CanDo(H,Schedule(X)))  PI.PA –B(H,W(S,Schedule(X))) –The hearer realizes that S wants to schedule X

 B(H,W(S,Schedule(X)))  PI.BA –Request(H,S,Schedule(X)) –Hearer understands that S is making a request to schedule a meeting.

1 line down 5 to go…  These list of plausible inferences not complete, nor are the action schemas  More are needed  Furthermore, the method for searching the space to find the right chain of inferences is under specified (here)  But – we’ve shown a formal method for the intuition established at the beginning