A preliminary classification of dialogue genres Staffan Larsson Internkonferens 2003

overview previous typologies –Dahlbäck 1997 –Allen dimensions of classification –moves and infostate –dialogue features –activity features Allwood’s activity based pragmatics

Goal –A classification of dialogue genres –Relevant for development of dialogue systems –Dimensions of classification correlating with dialogue system properties We will try to correlate our classification with GoDiS information state etc.

Dahlbäck (1997) modality: spoken/written kinds of agents: human/computer interaction: dialogue/monologue context: spatial, temporal number & type of tasks –simultaneous? dialogue-task distance –similarity of dialogue structure – task structure kinds of shared knowledge exploited –perceptual, linguistic, cultural

Allen et. al. (2001) technique used example tasktask complexity dialogue phenomena handled finite-state script long-distance dialing least complex user answers questions frame-basedgetting train timetable info user asks questions, simple clarifications by system sets of contexts travel booking agent shifts between predetermined topics plan-based models kitchen design consultant dynamically generated topic structures, collaborative negotiation subdialogues agent-based models disaster relief management most complex different modalities (e.g. planned world and actual world)

discussion Dahlbäck: several dimensions, but not so relevant for our purpouses Allen: single dimension of classification some types of dialogue not included –tutorial –explanatory –instructional We want a classification –based on several independent dimensions –covering not only information seeking and collaborative planning dialogue

Basic distinction: inquiry vs. action-oriented dialogue IOD: raising and addressing issues AOD introduces (non-communicative) actions to performed (requests) pure AOD vs. AOD+IOD dialogue type movesInfostate components inquiry- oriented ask answer/assert QUD ISSUES action- oriented request confirm ACTIONS

General dialogue phenomena grounding & accommodation probably present in all H-H dialogue; not included in classification negotiation perhaps less frequent featureMovesinfostate components groundingICM movesTMP, grounding issues accommodationaccommodateX (tacit moves) - negotiationpropose QuestionSet(Answer)

activity-related factors result type: (what goes in SH.COM and SH.ACTIONS) –simple: proposition, action –complex: plan, proof, explanation requires incremental construction proactivity of external process –passive: database, simple device –(pro)active: device, e.g. Robot –this dimension correlates with the way the system is connexted to the device distribution of decision rights –disjoint: each question can be answered only by one DP (e.g. destination city, price); this DP ”decides” the answer –shared: some question(s) should be answered jointly; negotiation may be needed –so this dimension correlates with negotiation

activity type / application dialog type result typeexternal process decision rights database searchIODsimple: price etc. complex: itinerary passive (database) disjoint ticket bookingAOD+ IOD simple: flightpassive (database) disjoint simple device control AOD+ IOD simple: actionspassive or active disjoint instructional (sys instructs usr) AOD+ IOD simple: actionspassive (manual) disjoint offline planning, incl. itinerary planning, complex device control AODcomplex: plan(s)passive (planner) shared online planning, e.g. TRIPS AOD+ IOD complex: planactive (device) shared explanationIODcomplex: proof or explanation passive (inference engine) shared tutorialIOD/ AOD complex?passive (planner) disjoint narrationIODcomplex: narrativepassivedisjoint

Possible additional activity- related factors static/dynamic ext. Process –Correlates with ability to apply updates to resource [is this interesting?] distribution of information –Symmetric: DPs have same kind of information –Asymmetric: DPs have different kinds of information –Correlates with what? Rules for who should answer which questions? …?

Allwood’s activity-based pragmatics Levels of activity/context –Physical: artifacts etc. –Biological –Psychological: beliefs, desires, intentions, … –Social: incl. rights & obligations, communicative and task- related How do these fit with the proposed activity-related factors? –Distribution of decision rights: social –Proactivity of external process: Physical (Biological? Psychological?) –Result type: Psychological? –Information state components: Psychological and social

comments The presence of grounding and accommodation may be independent of activity –… but not their form Make a decision graph which based on activity leads to dialogue genre/properties of system –System properties should be given nonformal but exact formulations that can be used by nonexperts –Correlation to system properties given in table form; correlate with libraries?

More thoughts Table shows –A classification of activities according to features of a dialogue system needed to particitpate in dialogues in these activities –Very specific activity types; e.g. Dialogue with Panasonic VCR 4500? Which level is right? Rule libraries come with infostate extensions/requirements, and with additional moves –Requirements not only on structure, but also on how it’s to be used, e.g. What does the order of a queue mean?

more How feedback is realised –Have different ICM grammars for different kinds of activity –Which factors determine genre-specific ICM? Written/spoken Noisiness Available modalities How important to be right? AOD->higher requirements on recognition, more checks? Negotiation (in ”alternatives” sense) not really directly correlated with shared decision rights

More… Possible additional dimensions –Opposing goals? –Argumentation? –Number of simultaneous tasks (one or several) –Several instances of same task-type simultaneously? How handle classroom questions?