A logic programming framework for the abductive inference of intentions in cooperative dialogues

  • Paulo Quaresma
  • José Gabriel Lopes
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 822)


In this paper we propose a general logic programming framework allowing the recognition of plans and intentions behind speech acts through abductive reasoning. These inferences enables each agent to have an active participation in dialogues, namely in cooperative informationseeking dialogues. In our framework the possible actions, events, states and world knowledge are represented by extended logic programs (LP with explicit negation) and the abductive inference process is modeled by a framework wich is based on the Well Founded Semantics augmented with explicit negation (WFSX) and contradiction removal semantics (CRSX) ([PAA92]). It will be shown how this framework supports abductive reasoning with Event Calculus ([Esh88]) and some classical examples in the domain of information-seeking dialogues will be shown ([Lit85, Pol86]). Finally, some open problems will be pointed out.


Abductive Reasoning User Plan Abductive Inference Plan Recognition Event Calculus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [AP80]
    J. F. Allen and C. R. Perrault. Analyzing intention in utterances. Artificial Intelligence, (15):143–178, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. [AP92]
    Douglas E. Appelt and Martha E. Pollack. Weighted abduction for plan ascription. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 2(1), 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [CL90]
    P. Cohen and H. Levesque. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42(3), 1990.Google Scholar
  4. [Esh88]
    Kave Eshghi. Abductive planning with event calculus. In ICLP, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. [FN71]
    R. E. Fikes and Nils J. Nilsson. Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intellligence, (2):189–208, 1971.Google Scholar
  6. [GL92]
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifshitz. Representing actions in extended logic programs. In Proceedings IJCSLP 92, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. [HSME88]
    J. Hobbs, M. Stickel, P. Martin, and D. Edwards. Interpretation as abduction. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of ACL, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. [LA87]
    D. Litman and J. Allen. A plan recognition model for subdialogues in conversations. Cognitive Science, (11):163–200, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. [Lit85]
    Diane J. Litman. Plan Recognition and Discourse Analysis: An Integrated Approach for Understanding Dialogues. PhD thesis, Dep. of Computer Science, University of Rochester, 1985.Google Scholar
  10. [Lop91]
    J. G. Lopes. Architecture for intentional participation of natural language interfaces in conversations. In C. Brown and G. Koch, editors, Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming III. North Holland, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. [MH93]
    Susan McRoy and Graeme Hirst. Abductive explanation of dialogue misunderstandings. In EACL'93, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. [Mis91]
    Lode Missiaen. Localized Abductive Planning with the Event Calculus. PhD thesis, Univ. Leuven, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. [PAA92]
    L. M. Pereira, J. J. Alferes, and J. N. Aparício. Contradiction removal semantics with explicit negation. In Proc. Applied Logic Conf., 1992.Google Scholar
  14. [Pol86]
    Martha E. Pollack. Inferring Domain Plans in Question-Answering. PhD thesis, Dep. of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. [QL92]
    P. Quaresma and J. G. Lopes. A two-headed architecture for intelligent multimedia man-machine interaction. In B. de Boulay and V. Sgurev (eds). Artificial Intelligence V — methodology, systems, applications. North Holland, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. [Sac77]
    Earl D. Sacerdoti. A Structure for Plans and Behavior. American Elsevier, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. [Sch92]
    Emanuel Schegloff. Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 5(97):1295:1345, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo Quaresma
    • 1
  • José Gabriel Lopes
    • 1
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence CenterUNINOVAMonte da CaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations