Sidner’s artificial negotiation language. Sidner: an artificial discourse language for collaborative negotiation Formal account of negotiative dialogue.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Kees van Deemter Matthew Stone Formal Issues in Natural Language Generation Lecture 4 Shieber 1993; van Deemter 2002.
Advertisements

By Anthony Campanaro & Dennis Hernandez
An information state approach to natural interactive dialogue Staffan Larsson, Robin Cooper Department of linguistics Göteborg University, Sweden.
Justification-based TMSs (JTMS) JTMS utilizes 3 types of nodes, where each node is associated with an assertion: 1.Premises. Their justifications (provided.
C O N T E X T - F R E E LANGUAGES ( use a grammar to describe a language) 1.
S3 Useful Expressions.
Negotiative dialogue some definitions and ideas. Negotiation vs. acceptance Clark’s ladder: –1. A attends to B’s utterance –2. A percieves B’s utterance.
1 Once you‘ve learned these expressions you should be able to write a decent letter for most situations ……. ….. There may be other possibilities, but I.
Computer Engineering 203 R Smith Project Tracking 12/ Project Tracking Why do we want to track a project? What is the projects MOV? – Why is tracking.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Slide 1 of 13 So... What’s Game Theory? Game theory refers to a branch of applied math that deals with the strategic interactions between various ‘agents’,
Apr 2, 2002Mårten Trolin1 Previous lecture On the assignment Certificates and key management –Obtaining a certificate –Verifying a certificate –Certificate.
Dialogue types GSLT course on dialogue systems spring 2002 Staffan Larsson.
U1, Speech in the interface:2. Dialogue Management1 Module u1: Speech in the Interface 2: Dialogue Management Jacques Terken HG room 2:40 tel. (247) 5254.
Issues Under Negotiation Staffan Larsson Dept. of linguistics, Göteborg University SigDial, 15/
LE TRINDIKIT A toolkit for building and experimenting with dialogue move engines and systems, based on the information state approach.
Question Accommodation and Information States in Dialogue
Information, action and negotiation in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Kings College, Jan 2001.
TrindiKit A toolkit for building and experimenting with dialogue move engines and systems, based on the information state approach.
Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU OFTI 2002, Göteborg.
4-1 Chapter 4: PRACTICAL REASONING An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems
Issues Under Negotiation Staffan Larsson Dept. of linguistics, Göteborg University NoDaLiDa, May 2001.
LE A toolkit for building and experimenting with dialogue move engines and systems, based on the information state approach TrindiKit.
Rough schedule Multimodal, multi-party dialogue [30 min] D’Homme, SIRIDUS [10 min] –dialogues with networked devices in a smart house SRI demo (DM), (IBL.
Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab GoDiS and TrindiKit MITRE workshop 27/10-03 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University Sweden.
Assertive Conflict Resolution Win-Win Solutions. Aggressive Behavior When I take my own rights into account and not the other person’s. Everyone should.
Problem solving in project management
THE NEW TEXAS CORE CURRICULUM (OCTOBER 27, 2011).
COMP14112: Artificial Intelligence Fundamentals L ecture 3 - Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning Lecturer: Xiao-Jun Zeng
Business Statistics - QBM117 Introduction to hypothesis testing.
The smokers’ proportion in H.K. is 40%. How to testify this claim ?
Conflict Resolution Win-Win Solutions.
Artificial Intelligence Introduction (2). What is Artificial Intelligence ?  making computers that think?  the automation of activities we associate.
1 Making sound teacher judgments and moderating them Moderation for Primary Teachers Owhata School Staff meeting 26 September 2011.
Optimistic Parenting: Hope and Help for the Challenging Child V. Mark Durand, Ph.D. University of South Florida St. Petersburg.
to Effective Conflict Resolution
Theories of Discourse and Dialogue. Discourse Any set of connected sentences This set of sentences gives context to the discourse Some language phenomena.
Information, action and negotiation in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Kings College, Jan 2001.
The Information State approach to dialogue modelling Staffan Larsson Dundee, Jan 2001.
Practice Examples 1-4. Def: Semantics is the study of Meaning in Language  Definite conclusions Can be arrived at concerning meaning.  Careful thinking.
From information exchange to negotiation Staffan Larsson Göteborg University
 Architecture and Description Of Module Architecture and Description Of Module  KNOWLEDGE BASE KNOWLEDGE BASE  PRODUCTION RULES PRODUCTION RULES 
N o, you don’t understand, I mean… Irini Nomikou supervisor: Dr. Floriana Grasso The one with the conductor and the girl on the train Cond: Did you pay.
LOGIC AND ONTOLOGY Both logic and ontology are important areas of philosophy covering large, diverse, and active research projects. These two areas overlap.
Issues in Multiparty Dialogues Ronak Patel. Current Trend  Only two-party case (a person and a Dialog system  Multi party (more than two persons Ex.
Discussion of Unpaid Claim Estimate Standard  Raji Bhagavatula  Mary Frances Miller  Jason Russ November 13, 2006 CAS Annual Meeting San Francisco,
Joanne Bodine Neil Bodine The Bodine Group
ORAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS Discussion skills and Presentation skills The course is designed to improve students’ speaking skills in English by: activating.
Information state and dialogue management in the TRINDI Dialogue Move Engine Toolkit, Larsson and Traum 2000 D&QA Reading Group, Feb 20 th 2007 Genevieve.
Information-State Dialogue Modelling in Several Versions HS Dialogmanagement, SS 2002 Universität Saarbrücken Michael Götze.
Assertive Conflict Resolution Win-Win Solutions. Aggressive Behavior When I take my own rights into account and not the other person’s. Everyone should.
EEL 5937 Agent communication EEL 5937 Multi Agent Systems Lotzi Bölöni.
April 29th, Chapter 6 Decision Making 6.1 The Nature of Management decisions 6.1 The Nature of Management decisions 6.2The decision making process.
1 Joint work with Claudio Antares Mezzina and Jean-Bernard Stefani Controlled Reversibility and Compensations Ivan Lanese Focus research group Computer.
1Computer Sciences Department. Book: INTRODUCTION TO THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION, SECOND EDITION, by: MICHAEL SIPSER Reference 3Computer Sciences Department.
AAAI Fall Symposium on Mixed-Initiative Problem-Solving Assistants 1 Mixed-Initiative Dialogue Systems for Collaborative Problem-Solving George Ferguson.
Problem Solving, Decision Making, Negotiation and Compromise
Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Comments on ”A Framework for Dialogue Act Specification” 4th Workshop on Multimodal Semantic Representation January.
SPEECH ACTS Saying as Doing See R. Nofsinger, Everyday Conversation, Sage, 1991.
Assumption-based Truth Maintenance Systems: Motivation n Problem solvers need to explore multiple contexts at the same time, instead of a single one (the.
HighImpactSoft 2010 Organizing a Better Future. Agenda Specify Goals ScopeDefinitions Process Model Preliminary Requirements Issues and solutions TraceabilityPrototype.
Agent-Based Dialogue Management Discourse & Dialogue CMSC November 10, 2006.
Lisa Åkesson (Coordinator of the Master Thesis Course) Writing a Master Thesis.
Plagiarism Miss H. 2008/2009. The entire content of this presentation comes from TurnItIn.com Turnitin allows free distribution and non-profit use of.
TECHNICAL WRITING September 17, Today - Memo structure - Common writing problems.
Language Learning for Busy People These documents are private and confidential. Please do not distribute.. Intermediate: I Disagree.
WHAT IS NEGOTIATION Negotiation is the process by which we search for terms to obtain what we want from somebody who wants something from us.
Stages of Research and Development
Technical writing September 22, 2014.
ETS WG meeting 6-7 September 2006
Presentation transcript:

Sidner’s artificial negotiation language

Sidner: an artificial discourse language for collaborative negotiation Formal account of negotiative dialogue negotiation for Sidner –... Has been applied to a dialogue from the AMEX corpus

Sider: basic concepts state of communication –beliefs (individual) –intentions –mutual beliefs –stack of open beliefs (OpenStack) –stack of rejected beliefs (RejectedStack) messages –agents ( a,b ) transmit messages with propositional contents ( p ) –semantics of messages given in terms of postconditions on the state of communication

messages primitive message types –ProposeForAccept PFA(a,p,b) a expresses p to b, intending b to accept p When acknowledged, p is pushed on OpenStack –Reject RJ(a,p,b) a does not believe p p is popped from OpenStack and pushed on RejectedStack –Accept AP(a,p,b) a and b now hold p as a mutual belief p is popped from OpenStack –RetractProposal RP(a,b,p) a retracts his proposal p

other messages Derived messages –Counter: CO(a,p,b,q) a counters b ’s proposal of p with q –AcceptOtherProp: AOP(a,b,p,q) a accepts b ’s proposal of q and rejects his own proposal p –ProposeReplace: PR(a,b,p,q) a proposes p and rejects b ’s proposal of q –ProposeAct: PA(a,b,d,c) a proposes action d in context c Acknowledgement messages –AckReceipt, AckReject, AckRejectedProp

Sample definition ProposeForAccept: PFA(a,p,b) –BEL(a,p) –INT(a,Achieve(a, BEL(b,p))) –BEL(a,Communicated(a,b,p)) AckReceipt: AR(a,p,b) –MB(a,b,BEL(b,p)) –MB(a,b,INT(a,Achieve(a,BEL(b,p))) –MB(a,b,Communicated(a,b,p)) –p is pushed on OpenStack

Analysis of questions Question = proposal that agent should perform an action Example –“Did John come?” –PFA(a,Should-Do(b,Tellif(b, ‘(john did come))) In what sense are questions proposals?

AMEX dialogue 0 BC My name is B C and I would like to plan a trip 1 TA and the date you need to leave? TA there is one on United that leaves Oakland at eleven thirty p.m. and arrives Chicago five twenty five a.m. 20 BC so that's a two hour hold there 21 TA yes 22 BC waiting for that flight ok any others? 23 TA uh not from Oakland. departing from San Francisco it's about the same actually American has an eleven forty one flight from San Francisco that arrives Chicago five fifty four (and 24 BC that's ) and hour and a half. so that's that's a a wash 25 TA yeah or wait just one moment. or United has a twelve oh one a.m. departure that arrives at Chicago five fifty two a.m. 26 BC oh that sounds good

Sidner: application to travel agency dialogue Sidner points out that –there are a number of alternative proposals on offer throughout this section –there is more going on than just questions and answers “Hi, my name is BC” is analysed as a proposal –Why is this counterintuitive?

Counterproposals in the AMEX dialogue Example repeated: 19 TA there is one on United that leaves Oakland at eleven thirty p.m. and arrives Chicago five twenty five a.m. 23 TA uh not from Oakland. departing from San Francisco it's about the same actually American has an eleven forty one flight from San Francisco that arrives Chicago five fifty four (and 25 TA yeah or wait just one moment. or United has a twelve oh one a.m. departure that arrives at Chicago five fifty two a.m. Analysis: –19 is analysed as ProposeForAccept –23 and 25 analysed as Counter Why are they not all analysed as proposals?

over to Stina...

Discussion

Levels in communication Allwood, Clark: levels of understanding and acceptance –1. A attends to B’s utterance –2. A perceives B’s utterance –3. A understands B’s utterance (grounding) –4. A accepts or rejects (the content of) B’s utterance (uptake) In GoDiS –grounding results in modifying SHARED.LU –uptake results in modifying SHARED.QUD and SHARED.BEL

GoDiS uses an optimistic approach to utterance uptake DPs assume their utterances and moves are accepted (and integrated into SHARED ) –If A asks a question with content Q, A will put Q topmost on SHARED.QUD If addressee indicates rejection, backtrack –using the PRIVATE.TMP field No need to indicate acceptance explicitly; it is assumed The alternative is a pessimistic approach –If A asks a question with content Q, A will wait for an acceptance (implicit or explicit) before putting Q on top of QUD

the Information State approach again Reformulating postconditions as IS update rules –requires specifying preconditions and effects of moves/messages –requires specifying exactly when each update is performed This leads to a new view of Sidner’s account

Mixing of optimistic and pessimistic strategies We saw that Sidner’s account is asymmetric regarding when different messages are assumed to be taken up –ProposeForAccept requires acknowledgement before OpenStack is affected (“pessimism”) –But Reject, RP, AP need not be acknowledged before affecting OpenStack (“optimism”) Or, to put it differently –Sidner assumes pessimistic approach to grounding and uptake of ProposeForAccept –but optimistic approach for Reject, Accept, RetractProposal

Uptake as negotiation the account of proposals etc. amounts to, in part, an account of utterance uptake, which all utterances are subject to –questions are seen as proposals –“My name is B C” is seen as a proposal It follows that Sidner views all dialogue as negotiation This is negotiation only in the sense that the uptake of any utterance can be negotiated

A different type of negotiation But this is a different kind of negotiation from what’s going on in the AMEX dialogue when different flights are proposed and compared We make a distinction between –negotiation of uptake, and –negotiation of alternatives

Negotiation of alternatives What distinguishes negotiative dialogue (in our sense) from other kinds of dialogue? suggested characterisation of negotiation: –DPs discuss several alternative solutions to some problem before choosing one of them Negotiation does not imply conflicting goals –perhaps not 100% correspondence to everyday use of the word “negotiation”, but useful to keep collaborativity as a separate dimension from negotiation –this is also common practice in mathematical game theory and political theory

What are proposals? questions, assertions and answers are not normally proposals proposals are dialogue moves on the same level as questions, assertions, instructions etc. as with all other moves, DPs can have an optimistic (or pessimistic) approach to grounding and uptake of proposal- moves

Why does Sidner analyse successive proposals as counterpropsals? If they weren’t, there would be nothing indicating that they are related to each other (and 19) –“Wear something warm” is not a counterproposal to “Take the 11:30 American flight” –but “Take the 11:42 United flight” is; these to proposals are related

A problem with counterproposals related proposals are analysed as counterproposals, i.e. as conflicting with previous proposals –but often alternative proposals do not conflict with previous proposals (e.g. buying a CD) –e.g. a travel agent is usually quite indifferent to which proposal is accepted –there’s a difference between “laying out options” and actually arguing for one of the options

Negotiable and non- negotiable issues Why does it seem strange to view e.g. “My name is B C” as negotiation in our sense? Some issues are negotiable, and some are not! –depends on activity –issues may become negotiable, e.g. if a previous proposal is challenged (“No it’s not, I’ve met you before and your name is A D!”)

Conclusion We have analysed Sidner’s account of negotiative dialogue using the information state approach We need to –make a distinction between negotiation of uptake, and negotiation of alternatives –provide a way of explaining how proposals can be related without being in conflict –make a distinction between negotiable and non-negotiable issues

Current work: an alternative account of negotiation Negotiation –the process of providing a solution (an answer) to an –Issue Under Negotiation (IUN), represented as a question Proposals –add answers to a set of possible answers related to an IUN Uptake –is handled separately from negotiation, but –when uptake fails, negotiation may be needed

counterproposals Counter (CO a p b q) : –without rejecting p, a offers q to b analysed as two proposals –(PFA a b p) –(PFA a(Supports q (Not p)) A counterproposal requires that the new proposal conflicts with a previous proposal In this way, Sidner can distinguish unrelated proposals from related proposals

Negotiation vs. acceptance Allwood, Clark: levels of understanding and acceptance –1. A attends to B’s utterance –2. A percieves B’s utterance –3. A understands B’s utterance (grounding) –4. A accepts or rejects B’s utterance Sidner and others sees negotiative dialogue as proposals and acceptance/rejections this means that all dialogue is negotiative –all assertions (and questions, instructions etc.) are proposals

Negotiation vs. acceptance But some dialogues are negotiative in another sense, –by explicitly containing discussions about different solutions to a problem, and finally deciding on one –Negotiation in this sense is not Clark’s level 4 proposals are dialogue moves on the same level as questions, assertions, instructions etc. There’s a difference between – accepting a proposal-move, and thereby adding a possible solution, and – accepting a proposed alternative as the solution

Two senses of “negotiation” Negotiation in Sidner’s sense –A: I’m going to Paris[propose P] –B(1): OK, let’s see... [accept P] –B(2): Sorry, we only handle trips within Sweden [reject P] Negotiation in our sense –U: flights to Paris on september 13 please –S: there is one flight at 07:45 and one at 12:00 [propose two flights] –U: what airline is the 12:00 one [ask] –S: the 12:00 flight is an SAS flight [answer] –U: I’ll take the 12:00 flight please [accept flight]

Remedies distinguish utterance acceptance from “real” negotiation an account of counterproposals which can account for the fact that –a new proposal may concern the same issue as a previous proposal, –without necessarily being a counterproposal

Negotiativity Negotiation is a type of problem-solving suggested characterisation of negotiation: –DPs discuss several alternative solutions to some problem before choosing one of them Negotiation does not imply conflicting goals –perhaps not 100% correspondence to everyday use of the word “negotiation”, but useful to keep collaborativity as a separate dimension from negotiation –this is also common practice in mathematical game theory and political theory

Negotiation tasks Some factors influencing negotiation –distribution of information between DPs –distribution of responsibility: whether DPs must commit jointly (e.g. Coconut) or one DP can make the comittment (e.g. flight booking) We’re initially trying to model negotiation in flight booking –sample dialogue U: flights to paris on september 13 please S: there is one flight at 07:45 and one at 12:00 U: what airline is the 12:00 one S: the 12:00 flight is an SAS flight U: I’ll take the 12:00 flight please –Sys provides alternatives, User makes the choice –Sys knows timetable, User knows when he wants to travel etc.

Degrees of negotiativity non-negotiative dialogue: only one alternative is discussed semi-negotiative dialogue: a new alternative can be introduced by altering parameters of the previous alternative, but previous alternatives are not retained negotiative dialogue: several alternatives can be introduced, and old alternatives are retained and can be returned to

Semi-negotiative dialogue Does not require keeping track of several alternatives Answers must be revisable (to some extent) Example of limited semi- negotiative dialogue –Swedish SJ system (Philips): ”Do you want an earlier or later train?”

Issues Under Negotiation i (fully) negotiative dialogue IUN is question e.g. what flight to take In an activity, some questions are marked as negotiable issues –other questions are assumed to be non- negotiable, e.g. the user’s name in a travel agency setting Each IUN is associated with a set of proposed answers –Needs a new IS field: SHARED.IUN of type assocset(question,set(answer))

Alternatives in negotiation Alternatives are possible answers to an IUN a proposal has the effect of introducing a new alternative to the Issue Under Negotiation An IUN is resolved when an alternative is decided on, i.e. when an answer to it is accepted In some cases, the answer to IUN may consist of a set of alternatives (e.g. when buying CDs)

Example IUN is ?x.sel_flight(x) (“which is the chosen flight”?) A: flight to paris, december 13 –answer(dest(paris)) etc.; B: OK, there’s one flight leaving at 07:45 and one at 12:00 –propose(f1), propose(f2), –answer(dep_time(f1,07:45)), answer(dep_time(f2,12:00)).... A: I’ll take the 07:45 one –answer(sel_flight(X), dep_time(X, 07:45)), –after contextual interpretation: answer(sel_flight(f1))

PRIVATE = PLAN = AGENDA = { findout(? x.sel_flight(x)) } SHARED = findout((? x. ccn(x)) book_ticket COM = dep_time(f1,0745), dep_time(f2,1200)  dest(paris),... QUD = <> LM = {propose(f1), propose(f2), answer(dep_time(f1,07:40),...} BEL = { flight(f1), dep_time(f1,0745),... } TMP = (same structure as SHARED) IUN = B: OK, there’s one flight leaving at 07:45 and one at 12:00

Issues Under Negotiation: Summary proposed alternatives can concern the same issue, without conflicting not all issues are negotiable: depends on the activity a formal account in line with the use of Questions Under Discussion in GoDiS

Future work implementation exploring negotiation in other domains relating IUN to global QUD; are they both needed? dealing with conflicting goals

CD dialogue –U: Records by the Beach Boys –S: You can buy Pet Sounds, Today, or Surf’s Up –U: Which is the cheapest? –S: Pet Sounds and Today are both 79:-, Surf’s Up is 149:- –U: Hmm... I’ll get Pet Sounds and Today