Managing Communicative Intentions with Collaborative Problem Solving

  • Nate Blaylock
  • James Allen
  • George Ferguson
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 22)


Dialogue systems need to be able to understand a user’s communicative intentions, reason with those intentions, form their own communicative intentions, and realize those intentions with actual language to be uttered to the user. Oftentimes in dialogue systems, however, what these communicative intentions actually correspond to is never clearly defined. We propose a descriptive model of dialogue, based on collaborative problem solving, which defines communicative intentions as attempts to modify a shared collaborative problem-solving state between the user and system. Modeling dialogue at the level of collaborative problem solving allows us to model a wider array of dialogue types than previous models, including the range of collaboration paradigms (master-slave to mixedinitiative) and interaction types (planning, execution, and interleaved planning and execution). It also provides a definition for utterance-level communicative intentions for use within a dialogue system.


Communicative Intentions Collaborative Problem Solving Dialogue Systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, J., Blaylock, N., and Ferguson, G. (2002). A problem solving model for collaborative agents. In First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, J., Byron, D., Dzikovska, M., Ferguson, G., Galescu, L., and Stent, A. (2000). An architecture for a generic dialogue shell. Journal of Natural Language Engineering special issue on Best Practices in Spoken Language Dialogue Systems Engineering, 6(3): 1–16.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, J., Ferguson, G., and Stent, A. (2001a). An architecture for more realistic conversational systems. In Proceedings of Intelligent User Interfaces 2001 (IUI-01), pages 1–8, Santa Fe, NM.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, J. F., Byron, D. K., Dzikovska, M., Ferguson, G., Galescu, L., and Stent, A. (2001b). Towards conversational human-computer interaction. AI Magazine, 22(4):27–37.Google Scholar
  5. Ardissono, L., Boella, G., and Lesmo, L. (1996). Recognition of problemsolving plans in dialogue interpretation. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on User Modeling, pages 195–197, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  6. Blaylock, N. (2002). Managing communicative intentions in dialogue using a collaborative problem solving model. Technical Report 774, University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  7. Blaylock, N., Allen, J., and Ferguson, G. (2002a). Synchronization in an asynchronous agent-based architecture for dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialog, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  8. Blaylock, N., Dowding, J., and Allen, J. (2002b). A dialogue model for interaction with planners, schedulers and executives. In Proceedings of the 3rd International NASA Workshop on Planning and Scheduling for Space, Houston, Texas. To appear.Google Scholar
  9. Carberry, S. (1990). Plan Recognition in Natural Language Dialogue. ACL-MIT Press Series on Natural Language Processing. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Carberry, S., Kazi, Z., and Larabert, L. (1992). Modeling discourse, problemsolving and domain goals incrementally in task-oriented dialogue. In Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop on User Modeling, pages 192–201. Wadern.Google Scholar
  11. Chu-Caroll, J. and Brown, M. K. (1997). Initiative in collaborative interactions — its cues and effects. In Haller, S. and McRoy, S., editors, Working Notes of AAAI Spring 1997 Symposium on Computational Models of Mixed Initiative Interaction, pages 16–22, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  12. Chu-Carroll, J. and Carberry, S. (2000). Conflict resolution in collaborative planning dialogues. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(6): 969–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, P. R. and Levesque, H. J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42:213–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J., and Pollack, M., editors (1990). Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Ferguson, G., Allen, J., Blaylock, N., Byron, D., Chambers, N., Dzikovska, M., Galescu, L., Shen, X., Swier, R., and Swift, M. (2002). The Medication Advisor project: Preliminary report. Technical Report 776, University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  16. Grosz, B. and Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3): 175–204.Google Scholar
  17. Grosz, B. J. and Kraus, S. (1996). Collaborative plans for complex group action. Artificial Intelligence, 86(2):269–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grosz, B. J. and Sidner, C. L. (1990). Plans for discourse. In Cohen et al., 1990, pages 417–444.Google Scholar
  19. Lambert, L. and Carberry, S. (1991). A tripartite plan-based model of dialogue. In Proceedings of the 29th ACL, pages 47–54, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Levesque, H., Cohen, P., and Nunes, J. (1990). On acting together. In Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 94–99, Boston. AAAI.Google Scholar
  21. Lochbaum, K. E. (1998). A collaborative planning model of intentional structure. Computational Linguistics, 24(4):525–572.Google Scholar
  22. Lochbaum, K. E., Grosz, B. J., and Sidner, C. L. (2000). Discourse structure and intention recognition. In Dale, R., Moisl, H., and Sommers, H., editors, Handbook of Natural Language Processing, pages 123–146. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Ramshaw, L. A. (1991). A three-level model for plan exploration. In Proceedings of the 29th ACL, pages 39–46, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Rao, A. S. and Georgeff, M. P. (1991). Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In Allen, J., Fikes, R., and Sandewall, E., editors, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 473–484, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  25. Rich, C., Sidner, C. L., and Lesh, N. (2001). COLLAGEN: Applying collaborative discourse theory to human-computer interaction. AI Magazine, 22(4): 15–25. Also available as MERL Tech Report TR-2000-38.Google Scholar
  26. Searle, J. R. (1990). Collective intentions and actions. In Cohen et al., 1990, pages 401–415.Google Scholar
  27. Traum, D. R. (1994). A computational theory of grounding in natural language conversation. Technical Report 545, University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science. PhD Thesis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nate Blaylock
    • 1
  • James Allen
    • 1
  • George Ferguson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations