1 / 38

A preliminary classification of dialogue genres or Correlating properties of activities with properties of dialogue syst

A preliminary classification of dialogue genres or Correlating properties of activities with properties of dialogue systems. Staffan Larsson Dept. of linguistics Göteborg University. Overview. Introduction Previous classifications of dialogue Dimensions of classification

amina
Télécharger la présentation

A preliminary classification of dialogue genres or Correlating properties of activities with properties of dialogue syst

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A preliminary classification of dialogue genresorCorrelating properties of activities with properties of dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Dept. of linguistics Göteborg University

  2. Overview • Introduction • Previous classifications of dialogue • Dimensions of classification • Possible additional activity dimensions • Using the classification: decision graphs and libraries • Summary & future work

  3. Introduction • Goals • A classification of dialogue genres (types, kinds, …), relevant for development of dialogue systems • Correlating properties of activities with properties of dialogue systems • Investigate how this classification can be used in the development of dialogue systems and applications • Background: GoDiS • An issue-based dialogue system implemented using TrindiKit (Larsson 2002) • This talk is done with GoDiS in mind, but it the ideas presented are intended to more general

  4. 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

  5. Discussion: Dahlbäck • Several dimensions, some relevant but some not • We currently assume spoken human-computer dialogue • Dialogue-task distance perhaps too abstract • Context, kinds of shared knowledge used, and number of tasks relevant, but not yet included in our classification • Type of task similar to our concept of activity

  6. Allen et. al. (2001)

  7. Discussion:Allen et. al. • Relates properties of system to properties of activity, BUT • Based on technologies, not properties of activities • Dialogue phenomena don’t necessarily come in lumps • Focus on information seeking and collaborative planning; some types of dialogue not included • Tutorial, Explanatory, Instructional…

  8. Desiderata for a classification of dialogue • Based on multiple independent properties of (dialogue in) different activities • Relating properties of activity to properties of system, formulated in the Information State approach • Covering not only information seeking and collaborative planning dialogue

  9. Background: Information State Approach • Information State (IS) • an abstract data structure (record, DRS, set, stack etc.) • accessed by dialogue system modules using conditions and operations • Dialogue Moves • utterance function (ask, answer, request etc.) • Update rules • Modify IS based on on observed moves • Select moves to be performed • IS Approach implemented in TrindiKit

  10. Dialogue classification & IS approach • We want to relate our classification to components of the IS approach: • IS type • Dialogue moves • Update rules • In this talk, rather informally • For GoDiS, we have more formal descriptions

  11. Some initial dimensions of classification • Inquiry-oriented vs. Action-oriented dialogue • Type of result: simple/complex • Type of external process: active/passive • Distribution of decision rights: shared/disjoint

  12. Inquiry-oriented vs. action-oriented dialogue • IOD: raising and addressing issues • E.g. database search • AOD: introduces (non-communicative) actions to performed (requests) • E.g. programming a Video Recorder

  13. Result type • Is the primary result of the dialogue a simple or a complex information object? • Simple: proposition, action • Complex: plan, proof, explanation • Complex results require update rules and information state components (e.g. a tree) enabling incremental construction • Example: offline planning • U: Get me coffee • R: How do I do that? • U: First, go to the kitchen. • R: OK. And then? • U: Go to the coffee machine. • …

  14. Proactivity of external process • Passive: database, simple device (e.g. Video Recorder) • (Pro)active: device, e.g. robot, burglar alarm • May need to interrupt current dialogue, perhaps even interrupt user utterances • This dimension correlates with • the way the system is connected to the device • Is the device interface a resource (passive) or a module (active)? • System intitiative and turntaking mechanisms

  15. Distribution of decision rights • Disjoint: each question directed to a specific DP ; this DP decides on the answer and does not need to negotiate • Shared: some question(s) should be answered jointly; negotiation may be needed • Dialogue system requirements for negotiation: • Dialogue move: propose • Information state component: a stack of pairs of • issue under negotiation, and • alternative solutions/answers to this issue • N.B.: we here refer to collaborative negotiation (non-conflicting goals) • E.g. SunDial furniture selection task

  16. Possible additional activity-related factors • Distribution of information • Symmetric: DPs have same kind of information • Asymmetric: DPs have different kinds of information • Relation to distribution of decision rights? • Shared or conflicting goals • Conflicting goals may lead to non-collaborative negotiation, which would require argumentation acts, including rhetorical acts • Number of simultaneous tasks (one or several) • But probably very few activities with just one task • …

  17. Comments • What we really are classifying are activities • Table shows a classification of activities according to features of a dialogue system needed to particitpate in dialogues in these activities • How specific should our activities, or activity types, be? • Action oriented dialogue? Device control? VCR control? Dialogue with Panasonic VCR 4500? • Is ”genre” still a useful term? • Could perhaps be reserved for very basic properties, such as IOD/AOD • Or have genres like ”AOD for active devices and collaborative negotiation and asymmetric distrubution of information”

  18. How can this classification be used? • Make decision graphs … • … which based on properties of the activity, including dialogue properties, … • … leads to dialogue genres, or to desired properties of system. • Based on output of decision graph, • select the variant of the system closest to the requirements • E.g. GoDiS for AOD with passive devices and disjoint decision rights

  19. Sample decision graph (partial, and assumes disjoint decision rights) Does the dialogue involve requests for actions? Is the goal of the dialogue to control a device? Is the goal of the dialogue to retrieve information from a database? Is the device active? IOD AOD-Passive

  20. Libraries? • Disadvantages of ”system variants” approach • Large number of system variants • Same code respresented in several system variants • Ideally, • system properties should correlate with modular libraries of moves, rules, and IS components; • These libraries can be combined into a system suitable for dialogue in the activity. • Libraries e.g. for • AOD, IOD • Simple results, complex results • Negotiation

  21. Independent ”decision graphs” for libraries: examples • Does the dialogue involve questions and answers? • Yes -> use ”IOD” library • Does the dialogue involve requests for actions? • Yes -> use ”AOD” library • Does the dialogue involve an active external process? • Yes -> use ”ActiveDevice” library • No -> use the ”PassiveDevice” library • Are there issues with shared decision rights? • Yes -> use ”Negotiation” library

  22. Libraries, cont’d • Libraries would also simplify implementation: • Enables upgrading a library without having to change anything else • E.g. plug in a new analysis of grounding • Allows reuse of the same rules etc. in multiple genres • However, it may be difficult to achieve the required degree of modularity

  23. Summary • By • relating properties of (dialogue in) activities to properties of dialogue systems, • we can • determine which variant of a system (or which combination of libraries) to use for a system in a given activity • We provided a first attempt at such a classification, • and discussed how it could be used

  24. Future work • Extend the number of dimensions of classification • More activity-related factors • Add modality-related factors? • Explore the idea of libraries • May be difficult to implement • (Extend capabilities of GoDiS • Currently, IOD and AOD for passive devices, disjoint decision rights, asymmetric distribution of information, shared goals, multiple simultaneous tasks)

  25. ?

  26. More thoughts • 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?

  27. Interactive Communication Management • The presence of ICM may be independent of activity • … but not the form of ICM • 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

  28. Modality-related properties • Written • Spoken • Not noisy • Noisy • Determines choice of feedback mechanisms • To some extent activity-related

  29. 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

  30. Cutouts…

  31. GoDiS: an issue-based dialogue system • Built using TrindiKit • Toolkit for implementing and experimenting with dialogue systems based on the information state approach • Explores and implements Issue-based Dialogue Management (IBDM) • Extends theory to more flexible dialogue • Multiple tasks, information sharing between tasks • Interactive Communication Management (ICM), including feedback, and grounding • Question accommodation • Negotiation of alternatives • Menu based action oriented dialogue

  32. control DME input inter- pret update select gene- rate output • TIS • DATABASE LEXICON DOMAIN data- base lexicon domain knowledge

  33. activity-specific Xerox manual home device manager Travel Agency VCR manager Auto- route genre-specific GoDiS-IOD GoDiS-AOD IBDM GoDiS TrindiKit IS approach

  34. General dialogue phenomena- may appear in any activity • We assume grounding & accommodation probably present in all spoken H-H dialogue • However, grounding works very differently in noisy environments, and of course in written dialogue • We don’t use these factors to distinguish activities

  35. Added 030531 • AOD/IOD- complicated cases • Web search:IOD/AOD; what is a non-communicative action? • Offline planning (should be IOD, unless DP requested to carry out the plan) • Distinguish different kinds of computer DPs • Robots vs. Stationary devices, etc.

  36. Additional dimension • Pronoun resolution needed? Or can it be ignored? How determine this y looking at dialogue? • Turntaking related to • Grounding (modality) • Passive/active device • …?

  37. Why not use all libraries (maximal variants)? • Because more work adapting to new domains

More Related