Abstract
Although a number of researchers have demonstrated that reasoning on a model of the user's plans and goals is helpful in language understanding and response generation, current models of plan inference cannot handle naturally occurring dialogue. This paper argues that model building from less than ideal dialogues has a great deal in common with processing ill-formed input. It defines well-formedness constraints for information-seeking dialogues and contends that strategies for interpreting ill-formed input can be applied to the problem of modeling the user's plan during an ill-formed dialogue. It presents a meta-rule approach for hypothesizing the cause of dialogue ill-formedness, and describes meta-rules for relaxing the plan inference process and enabling the consideration of alternative hypotheses. The advantages of this approach are that it provides a unified framework for handling both well-formed and ill-formed dialogue, avoids unnatural interpretations when the dialogue is proceeding smoothly, and facilitates a nonmonotonic plan recognition system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, James F. and C. Raymond Perrault: 1980, ‘Analyzing Intention in Utterances’.Artificial Intelligence 15, 143–178.
Appelt, Douglas E. and Martha E. Pollack: 1992, ‘Weighted Abduction for Plan Ascription’.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 2(1/2), 1–25 (this issue).
Calistri-Yeh, Randall J.: 1991, ‘Utilizing User Models to Handle Ambiguity and Misconceptions in Robust Plan Recognition’.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1(4), 289–322.
Carberry, Sandra: 1989, ‘Plan Recognition and Its Use in Understanding Dialogue’. In: Alfred Kobsa and Wolfgang Wahlster (eds.):User Models in Dialog Systems, Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Carberry, Sandra: 1990a, ‘Incorporating Default Inferences Into Plan Recognition’. In:Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 471–478.
Carberry, Sandra: 1990b,Plan Recognition in Natural Language Dialogue. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carver, Norman F., Victor R. Lesser, and Daniel L. McCue: 1984, ‘Focusing in Plan Recognition’. In:Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Austin, Texas, pp. 42–48.
Comrie, Bernard: 1981,Tense. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Cohen, Philip R., C. Raymond Perrault, and James F. Allen: 1981, ‘Beyond Question Answering’. In: W. Lehnert and M. Ringle (eds.):Strategies for Natural Language Processing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 245–274.
Cohen, Robin, Fei Song, Bruce Spencer, and Peter van Beek: 1991, ‘Exploiting Temporal and Novel Information from the User in Plan Recognition’.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1(2), 125–148.
Eiselt, Kurt P.: 1987, ‘Recovering from Erroneous Inferences’.Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 540–544.
Goodman, Bradley A.: 1986a, ‘Miscommunication and Plan Recognition’. Presented at International Workshop on User Modeling, Maria Laach, West Germany.
Goodman, Bradley A.: 1986b, ‘Reference Identification and Reference Identification Failures’.Computational Linguistics, pp. 273–305.
Goodman, Bradley A. and Diane J. Litman: 1990, ‘Plan Rcognition for Intelligent Interfaces’. In:Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications, Santa Barbara, California, pp. 297–303.
Goodman, Bradley A. and Diane J. Litman: 1992, ‘On the Interaction Between Plan Recognition and Intelligent Interfaces’.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 2(1/2), 83–115 (this issue).
Granger, Richard H.: 1981, ‘Directing and Re-directing Inference Pursuit: Extra-textual Influences on Text Interpretation’. In:Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 354–361.
Konolige, Kurt and Martha Pollack: 1989, ‘Ascribing Plans to Agents: Preliminary Report’.Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 924–930.
Litman, Diane: 1986, ‘Linguistic Coherence: A Plan-based Alternative’. In:Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 215–223.
Litman, Diane and James Allen: 1987, ‘A Plan Recognition Model for Subdialogues in Conversation’.Cognitive Science 11, 163–200.
Lochbaum, Karen, Barbara Grosz, and Candace Sidner: 1990, ‘Models of Plans to Support Communication: An Initial Report’. In:Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Boston, Massachusetts.
Loui, R. P.: 1987, ‘Defeat Among Arguments: A System of Defeasible Inferences’.Computational Intelligence 3(2), 100–106.
Mayfield, James: 1992, ‘Controlling Inference in Plan Recognition’.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 2(1/2), 55–82 (this issue).
McCawley, James D. 1981,Everything that Linguists have Always Wanted to Know about Logic But Were Ashamed to Ask. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Moens, Marc and Mark Steedman: 1988, ‘Temporal Ontology and Temporal Reference’.Computational Linguistics Special Issue on Tense 14(2).
Norvig, P.: 1983, ‘Six Problems for Story Understanders’.Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 284–287.
O'Rorke, P.: 1983, ‘Reasons for Beliefs in Understanding: Applications of Non-monotonic Dependencies to Story Processing’.Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 306–309.
Pollack, M.: 1986a,Inferring Domain Plans in Question-Answering. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Pollack, M.: 1986b, ‘A Model of Plan Inference that Distinguishes Between the Beliefs of Actors and Observers’. In:Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, New York, pp. 207–214.
Pollack, M.: 1987, ‘Some Requirements for a Model of the Plan-inference Process in Conversation’. In: Ronan Reilly (ed.):Communication Failure in Dialogue, North Holland, pp. 245–256.
Raskutti, Bhavani and Ingrid Zukerman: 1991, ‘Generation and Selection of Likely Interpretations During Plan Recognition in Task-oriented Consultation Systems’.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1(4), 323–353.
Reichenbach, H.: 1947,Elements of Symbolic Logic. Macmillan Company, London, England.
Retz-Schmidt, Gudula: 1991, ‘Recognizing Intentions, Interactions, and Causes of Plan Failures’.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1(2), 173–202.
Sidner, Candace L.: 1983, ‘What the Speaker Means: The Recognition of Speakers' Plans in Discourse’.Computers and Mathematics With Applications 9(1), 71–82.
Sidner, Candace L.: 1985, ‘Plan Parsing for Intended Response Recognition in Discourse’.Computational Intelligence 1, 1–10.
Schmidt, C. F., N. S. Sridharan, and J. L. Goodson: 1978, ‘The Plan Recognition Problem: An Intersection of Psychology and Artificial Intelligence’.Artificial Intelligence 11, 45–82.
Webber, Bonnie: 1988, ‘Introduction to Computational Linguistics Special Issue on Tense’.Computational Linguistics Special Issue on Tense 14(2).
Wilensky, Robert: 1981, ‘Meta-planning: Representing and Using Knowledge About Planning in Problem Solving and Natural Language Understanding’.Cognitive Science 5, 197–233.
Weischedel, Ralph M. and Norman K. Sondheimer: 1983, ‘Meta-rules AsaBasis for Processing Ill-formed Input’.American Journal of Computational Linguistics 9(3), 161–177.
Wu, Dekai: 1991, ‘Active Acquisition of User Models: Implications for Decision-theoretic Dialog Planning and Plan Recognition’.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1(2), 149–172.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Rhonda Eller is a Ph.D. candidate in Computer Science at the University of Delaware. She received her B.S. in Computer Science from Millersville University of Pennsylvania in 1987, and her M.S. degree in the same field from the University of Delaware. Her primary interests lie in the areas of natural language processing, plan recognition, and user modelling. This paper summarizes the current state of her thesis work on repair of an incorrectly inferred plan for a user.
Sandra Carberry is an associate professor of computer science at the University of Delaware. Her research interests include discourse understanding, user modeling, planning and plan recognition, and intelligent natural language interfaces. This paper describes work that is part of an ongoing research project to develop a robust model of plan recognition.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eller, R., Carberry, S. A meta-rule approach to flexible plan recognition in dialogue. User Model User-Adap Inter 2, 27–53 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01101858
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01101858