Comparing Several Aspects of Human-Computer and Human-Human Dialogues

  • Christine Doran
  • John Aberdeen
  • Laurie Damianos
  • Lynette Hirschman
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 22)


While researchers have many intuitions about the differences between human-computer (HC) and human-human (HH) interactions, most of these have not previously been subject to empirical scrutiny. Our work presents some initial experiments in this direction, with the ultimate goal of using what we learn to improve computer dialogue systems. Working with data from the air travel domain, we identified a number of striking differences between the HH and HC interactions. In general, the conversation was much more balanced between traveler and expert in the HH setting in terms of amount of speech, types of dialogue acts and sharing initiative. In the HC conversations, the system dominated in number of words and dialogue acts and in initiative, and there are gestalt patterns in the distribution of dialogue acts which reflect a similar skew of control toward the system.


User Satisfaction Dialogue System Dialogue Strategy Speak Dialogue System User Initiative 
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. Aberdeen, J., Doran, C., Damianos, L., Bayer, S., and Hirschman, L. (2001). Finding errors automatically in semantically tagged dialogues. In Notebook Proceedings of the First International Conference on Human Language Technology Research, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  2. Brill, E. (1993). A Corpus-Based Approach to Language Learning. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Computer and Information Science.Google Scholar
  3. Carletta, J. (1996). Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics, 22(2):249–254.Google Scholar
  4. Carletta, J. C., Isard, A., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., Doherty-Sneddon, G., and Anderson, A. (1995). The coding of dialogue structure in a corpus. In Andernach, J. A., van de Bürgt, S. P., and van der Hoeven, G. F., editors, Proceedings of the Twente Workshop on Language Technology: Corpus-based approaches to dialogue modelling, Enschede, The Netherlands. Universiteit Twente.Google Scholar
  5. Chu-Carroll, J. (2000). Mimic: An adaptive mixed initiative spoken dialogue system for information queries. In Proceedings of the Sixth Applied Natural Language Processing Conference.Google Scholar
  6. Chu-Carroll, J. and Brown, M. K. (1998). An evidential model for tracking initiative in collaborative dialogue interactions. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 8(3–4):215–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Core, M. and Allen, J. (1997). Coding dialogs with the damsl annotation scheme. In Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Communicative Action in Humans and Machines, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Core, M., Ishizaki, M., Moore, J., Nakatani, C., Reithinger, N., Traum, D., and Tutiya, S., editors (1999). The Report of The Third Workshop of the Discourse Resource Initiative, Chiba Univeristy. Technical Report No.3 CC-TR-99-1.Google Scholar
  9. CSTAR Consortium (1999). Dialogue act annotation. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  10. Danieli, M. (1996). On the use of expectations for detecting and repairing human-machine mis communication. In Proc. of the AAAI Workshop on Detecting, Repairing and Preventing Human-Machine Miscommunication.Google Scholar
  11. Di Eugenio, B., Jordan, P. W., and Pylkkänen, L. (1998). The COCONUT project: dialogue annotation manual. Technical Report ISP Technical Report 98-1, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  12. Flammia, G. and Zue, V. (1997). Learning the structure of mixed initiative dialogues using a corpus of annotated conversations. In Proc. Eurospeech 97, pages 1871–1874, Rhodes, Greece.Google Scholar
  13. Hirschman, L. and Pao, C. (1993). The cost of errors in a spoken language system. In Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology.Google Scholar
  14. Jordan, P. W. and Di Eugenio, B. (1997). Control and initiative in collaborative problem solving dialogues. In AAAI Spring Symposium on Computational Models for Mixed Initiative Interaction, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  15. Jurafsky, D., Shriberg, E., and Biasca, D. (1997). Switchboard swbd-damsl shallow-discourse-function annotation coders manual. Technical Report Technical Report 97-02, University of Colorado Institute of Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  16. Klein, M., Bernsen, N. O., Davies, S., Dybkjaer, L., Garrido, J., Kasch, H., Mengel, A., Pirelli, V., Poesio, M., Quazza, S., and Soria, C. (1998). Supported Coding Schemes, MATE Deliverable DLL Scholar
  17. Litman, D. and Pan, S. (2002). Designing and evaluating an adaptive spoken dialogue system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 12(2–3): 111–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nakatani, C. H., Grosz, B. J., Ahn, D. D., and Hirschberg, J. (1995). Instructions for annotating discourse. Technical Report TR-21-95, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  19. Stent, A. J. (2000). The monroe corpus. Technical Report 728/TN 99-2, The University of Rochester, Computer Science Department.Google Scholar
  20. van Vark, R., de Vreught, J., and Rothkrantz, L. (1996). Analysing ovr dialogues, coding scheme 1.0. Technical Report 96–137, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
  21. Walker, M., Aberdeen, J., Boland, J., Bratt, E., Garofolo, J., Hirschman, L., Le, A., Lee, S., Narayan, S., Papineni, K., Pellom, B., Polifroni, J., Potamianos, A., Prabhu, P., Rudnicky, A., Sanders, G., Seneff, S., Stallard, D., and Whit-taker, S. (2001). DARPA Communicator Dialog Travel Planning Systems: The June 2000 Data Collection. Submitted.Google Scholar
  22. Walker, M. and Passonneau, R. (2001). Dialogue act tags as qualitative dialogue metrics for spoken dialogue systems. In Proc. of the First International Conference on Human Language Technology Research, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  23. Walker, M. and Whittaker, S. (1990). Mixed initiative in dialogue: An investigation into discourse segmentation. In Proceedings of ACL90.Google Scholar
  24. Whittaker, S. and Stenton, P. (1988). Cues and control in expert client dialogues. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL88), pages 123–130.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Doran
    • 1
  • John Aberdeen
    • 1
  • Laurie Damianos
    • 1
  • Lynette Hirschman
    • 1
  1. 1.The MITRE CorporationBedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations