The Information State Approach to Dialogue Management

  • David R. Traum
  • Staffan Larsson
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 22)


We introduce the information state approach to dialogue management, and show how it can be used to formalize theories of dialogue in a manner suitable for easy implementation. We also show how this approach can lead to better engineering of dialogue management components of dialogue systems, allowing for separate development of modular system fundamentals, dialogue theories, and domain-specific dialogue systems, in a manner where components can more easily be reused. TrindiKit is a tool instantiating the lowest level, and allowing straightforward implementation of dialogue theories formalized using the information state approach. We briefly describe several dialogue systems built using TrindiKit, and how components have been successfully further developed and reused in other projects.


Dialogue Management information state TrindiKit GoDiS EDIS 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Lars Ahrenberg, Nils Dahlback, and Arne Jensson. Discourse representation and discourse management for a natural language dialogue system. In Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Text Comprehension in Man and Machine, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. James F. Allen, George Ferguson, and Amanda Stent. An architecture for more realistic conversational systems. In Proceedings Intelligent User Interfaces 2001 (IUI 01), pages 1–8, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. Nate Blaylock, James Allen, and George Ferguson. Synchronization in an asynchronous agent-based architecture for dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 1–10, Philadelphia, July 2002. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  4. Peter Bohlin, Robin Cooper, Elisabet Engdahl, and Staffan Larsson. Information states and dialogue move engines. In Proceedings of the 1JCA199 workshop: Knowledge And Reasoning in Practical Dialogue Systems, pages 25–31, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. Johan Bos, Peter Bohlin, Staffan Larsson, Ian Lewin, and Colin Matheson. Evaluation of the model with respect to restricted dialogue systems. Technical Report Deliverable D3.2, Trindi, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. P. Breuer and M. D. Sadek. A rational agent as the kernel of a cooperative spoken dialogue system: Implementing a logical theory of interaction. In J. P. Muller, M. J. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings, editors, Intelligent Agents III — Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-96), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. Carl Burke, Lisa Harper, and Dan Loehr. A dialogue architecture for multimodal control of robots. In Proceedings of the International CLASS Workshop on Natural, Intelligent and Effective Interaction in Multimodal Dialogue Systems., June 2002.Google Scholar
  8. Herbert H. Clark and Edward F. Schaefer. Collaborating on contributions to conversation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2:1–23, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Phil Cohen. Dialogue modeling. In Ron Cole, Joseph Mariani, Hans Uszkoreit, Annie Zaenen, and Victor Zue, editors, Survey of the State of the Art of Human Language Technology, chapter 6.3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. Robin Cooper and Staffan Larsson. Dialogue moves and information states. In H.C. Bunt and E. C. G. Thijsse, editors, Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computational Semantics, pages 398–400, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. R. Cooper, S. Larsson, C. Matheson, M. Poesio, and D. Traum. Coding instructional dialogue for information states. Deliverable D1.1, Trindi Project, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. M. Core, J. Moore, and C. Zinn. Supporting constructive learning with a feedback planner. In Papers from the AAAI Fall Symposium on Building Dialogue Systems for Tutorial Applications., 2000. Technical Report FS-00-01, American Association for Articial Intelligence, 445 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park CA 94025.Google Scholar
  13. Discourse Resource Initiative. Standards for dialogue coding in natural language processing. Report no. 167, Dagstuhl-Seminar, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. J. Ginzburg. Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In Jerry Seligman and Dag Westerstahl, editors, Logic, Language and Computation, Vol. 1, pages 221–237. CSLI Publications, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. J. Ginzburg. Interrogatives: Questions, facts and dialogue. In Shalom Lappin, editor, The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pages 385–422. Blackwell, Oxford, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. J. Ginzburg. Clarifying utterances. In J. Hulstijn and A. Niholt, editors, Proc. of the Twente Workshop on the Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogues, pages 11–30, Enschede, 1998. Universiteit Twente, Faculteit Informatica.Google Scholar
  17. Michael Johnston, Srinivas Bangalore, Gunaranjan Vasireddy, Amanda Stent, Patrick Ehlen, Marilyn Walker, Steve Whittaker, and Preetam Maloor. Match: An architecture for multimodal dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 376–383, 2002.Google Scholar
  18. H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. J. E. Laird, A. Newell, and P. S. Rosenbloom. SOAR: an architecture for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 33(1):1–64, September 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Staffan Larsson, Peter Bohlin, Johan Bos, and David Traum. Trindikit manual. Technical Report Deliverable D2.2 — Manual, Trindi, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. Staffan Larsson, Alexander Berman, Peter Ljunglüf, and David Traum. Implemented siridus system architecture (trindikit 3.0 manual). Technical Report Deliverable D6.4 — Manual, SIRIDUS, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. Staffan Larsson. Issue-based Dialogue Management. PhD thesis, Güteborg University, 2002.Google Scholar
  23. Ian Lewin. The autoroute dialogue demonstrator. Technical Report CRC-073, SRI Cambridge Computer Science Research Centre, 1998.Google Scholar
  24. David K. Lewis. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(3):339–359, 1979.Google Scholar
  25. David L. Martin, Adam J. Cheyer, and Douglas B. Moran. The open agent architecture: A framework for building distributed software systems. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13(1–2):91–128, January-March 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Colin Matheson, Massimo Poesio, and David Traum. Modelling grounding and discourse obligations using update rules. In Proceedings of the First Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2000.Google Scholar
  27. Catherine Pelachaud, Valeria Carofiglio, Beradina De Carolis, Fiorella de Rosis, and Isabella Poggi. Embodied contextual agent in information delivering application. In Proceedings of the first International Joint conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent systems, pages 758–765, 2002.Google Scholar
  28. Massimo Poesio and David R. Traum. Conversational actions and discourse situations. Computational Intelligence, 13(3), 1997.Google Scholar
  29. Massimo Poesio and David R. Traum. Towards an axiomatization of dialogue acts. In Proceedings of Twendial’98, 13th Twente Workshop on Language Technology: Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, pages 207–222, 1998.Google Scholar
  30. M. Poesio, R. Cooper, S. Larsson, C. Matheson, and D. Traum. Annotating conversations for information state update. In Proceedings of Amstelogue’ 99 workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue, 1999.Google Scholar
  31. David Sadek and Renato De Mori. Dialogue systems. In R. De Mori, editor, Spoken Dialogues with Computers. Academic Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  32. John R. Searle. Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
  33. S. Sutton and R. Cole. Universal speech tools: the cslu toolkit. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), pages 3221–3224, 1998.Google Scholar
  34. David R. Traum and James F. Allen. Discourse obligations in dialogue processing. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1–8, 1994.Google Scholar
  35. David R. Traum and Elizabeth A. Hinkelman. Conversation acts in task-oriented spoken dialogue. Computational Intelligence, 8(3):575–599, 1992. Special Issue on Non-literal language.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. David R. Traum and Jeff Rickel. Embodied agents for multi-party dialogue in immersive virtual worlds. In Proceedings of the first International Joint conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent systems, pages 766–773, 2002.Google Scholar
  37. David Traum, Johan Bos, Robin Cooper, Staffan Larsson, Ian Lewin, Colin Matheson, and Massimo Poesio. A model of dialogue moves and information state revision. Technical Report Deliverable D2.1, Trindi, 1999.Google Scholar
  38. David R. Traum. A Computational Theory of Grounding in Natural Language Conversation. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, 1994. Also available as TR 545, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  39. David R. Traum. 20 questions for dialogue act taxonomies. Journal of Semantics, 17(1):7–30, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • David R. Traum
    • 1
  • Staffan Larsson
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Creative TechnologiesUniversity of Southern CaliforniaMarina del ReyUSA
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsGothenburg UniversityGθteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations