David Traum USC Institute for Creative Technologies William Swartout USC Institute for Creative...
-
Upload
mavis-kelly -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of David Traum USC Institute for Creative Technologies William Swartout USC Institute for Creative...
David Traum USC Institute for Creative Technologies
William Swartout USC Institute for Creative Technologies
Jonathan Gratch USC Institute for Creative Technologies
Stacy Marsella USC Information Sciences Institute
Fight, Flight, or Negotiate: Believable
Strategies for Conversing under Crisis
OutlineOutline
1. Background: ICT Virtual Humans and the SASO Project
2. Adversarial Negotiation: theory overview
3. Implementation of Negotiation Strategies in Vhumans
4. Preliminary Evaluation5. Current & Next Steps
ICT Virtual Human Project (2000 ICT Virtual Human Project (2000 - …) - …)
Push state of the art in integrated virtual human capabilities Basic research
in a number of component fields Emotion Perception human animation natural language dialogue
On overlap & interaction between these areas
Theory put to practice in integrated vhumans Vhumans employed for real tasks
Immersive training applications Tested on target user population
Virtual Human Example Virtual Human Example ApplicationsApplicationsMission Rehearsal Exercise (MRE)Domain: Platoon-level peacekeepingTraining Activity: Decision-making & Teamwork
Only team negotiation
Stability and Support Operations (SASO-ST)
Domain:Bi-lateral (& Multi-lateral) Negotiation
Training Activity : Building Trust & Negotiation Strategies
SASO-ST: SASO-ST: DealingDealingWith Doctors With Doctors ScenarioScenario
•Mission:
•Convince Doctor to move (but don’t give op details)
•Gain working relationship with Doctor
•Doctor Perez runs NGO clinic
•Doctor values Neutrality
•No prior relationship with Doctor
•Recently:
•Rise in insurgent activity
•More casualties in clinic
•Planned operations
Speech Recognition (Sonic)
Semantic Parser
Motion/ Gesture Scheduler (BEAT)
Text to Speech (Rhetorical)
SimulationEnvironment
BDI Com
mun
icat
ion
Bus
Audio (Protools)
Voice Input
UT
Projection System
Speakers (10.2)
Soar Planning
DialogueAction Selection
Per
cept
ion
Emotion
NLU pragmatics
OSS
ICT Virtual Human Architecture
NLG
Dialogue Approach:Layered Dialogue Approach:Layered Information StateInformation State
Layer captures coherent aspect of communicative interaction (e.g., turn, grounding, obligations)
Layer consists of Information State components (state of interaction) Dialogue Acts (Packages of changes to information state)
Realization Rules
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.
DialogueActs
InputUtterance
Recognition Rules
Update Rules
Output Utterance(verbal and nonverbal)
Selection Rules
Info StateComponents
Dialogue Manager
DialogueActs
Virtual Human Dialogue Layers Virtual Human Dialogue Layers (Traum & Rickel AAMAS 02)(Traum & Rickel AAMAS 02)
ContactAttentionConversation
Participants Turn Initiative Grounding Purpose
Social Obligations-Commitments Negotiation-Collaboration
Social RolesIndividual
Perception Rational
belief,desire, intention,..
Emotional Coping strategies
Social Commitments Social Commitments (Traum & Allen94, Allwood 94, Matheson et al 00)(Traum & Allen94, Allwood 94, Matheson et al 00)
IS Obligations, Social Commitments to Propositions
Actions Order, Request, Suggest Promise, Offer Statement, Question Accept,..
Effects are to Obligations & Commitments Belief updates based on inference, not speech act effects
Social StateSocial State
^obligation + & ;#obligations to act ^type ^holder ^obligated-to ^action ^deadline ^sanction
^commitment + & ;#committed to states of affairs holding ^type ^holder ^committed-to ^proposition ^sanction
^conditional + & ;#obligation or commitment if action ^type ^trigger ;# an action to check performance of ^consequent ;# the resulting commitment or obligation
roles ^teammate ^superior + & ;# agents superior to self ^subordinate + &) ;# agents subordinate to self
Team Negotiation Team Negotiation (Traum et al (Traum et al AAMAS 2003)AAMAS 2003)
IS: task (&CGU) annotated with negotiation objects Components: Agent, Action, Stance, audience, reason
Stances: Committed, endorsed, mentioned, not mentioned, disparaged, rejected
Action effects: Suggestion: mentioned command, promise, request, or acceptance: committed
Rejection: rejected Counterproposal: disparaged1 + endorsed2
Justification: endorsed or disparaged (depending on direction)
Offer: mention (conditional commitment) Retract stance
Factors: Relevant Party: Authorizing or Responsible Agent Dialogue State: who has discussed Plan State: how do I feel about it
Theory of non-team NegotiationsTheory of non-team Negotiations
Context for NegotiationOrientations
Strategies moves
Negotiation settingsNegotiation settingsTeam planning
Same goals or utility Negotiate on best means to common end
Stable Institution Fixed, respected rules, enforced (courts, etc) Bargaining, contracts No penalty for not negotiating
Hostile Dealing with antagonists Coercion, threats, deception Could degenerate to use of force
Spontaneous Uncertainty of proper model Multiple approaches (re-)assess situation
Game theory approachGame theory approach
Team game Identical utilities (goals) for team members
Zero-sum Total utility is fixed, any “win” for one side is a “loss” for another
Generalized Game payoff matrixes unconstrained
Different sorts (e.g., prisoner’s dilemma)
Search for equilibria (“win-win”)
Orientations toward negotiationOrientations toward negotiation(Walton & Mckersie, Sillars et al, etc)(Walton & Mckersie, Sillars et al, etc)
Avoidance No benefit from negotiation avoidable
Distributive Zero-sum (win for other is loss for me)
Integrative Open to cooperation Possibilities of win-win
All of these are subjective perceptions, whatever the real situation
Coping With Negotiation Coping With Negotiation OrientationsOrientationsCascaded meta-strategies
Zero-level: strategies to cope with pressure to negotiate and own orientation
1st-level: strategies to cope with orientations (and strategies) of other (given desire to negotiate)
2nd-level: strategies to cope with other’s 1st-level strategies
Zero-level Strategies (own Zero-level Strategies (own orientation)orientation)
Avoidance Avoid Disengage
Distributive Attack Unreasonable demands Trap
Integrative Bargain Find maxima
1st level Strategies 1st level Strategies (react to (react to Other’s Orientation):Other’s Orientation): (1) (1) Work within Work within other’s orientationother’s orientation
Avoid Let avoid Make avoidance costly
Distributive Same as zero-level Distributive strategies
Integrative Negotiate trick
1st level Strategies 1st level Strategies (react to (react to Other’s Orientation): Other’s Orientation): (2) Change (2) Change other’s orientationother’s orientationFrom avoidance to distributive/integrativeStay engaged/on topicShow value for negotiation
From distributive to integrativeDemonstrate trustworthyness
Familiarity Credibility Solidarity
Show value in cooperationShow value in negotiation goal
2nd level strategies 2nd level strategies (react to (react to other’s attempt to change orientation)other’s attempt to change orientation)
Assess motivation for other’s utterances Is offer or assertion self-serving or against own interest?
Can claims be verified independently? Assess sincerity
Strategically adopt strategies Which are most likely to lead to adoption of helpful strategies by other
Display orientation (whether actually held or not)
Coping With Negotiation Coping With Negotiation Orientations:Orientations:Initial Model in SASO-ST projectInitial Model in SASO-ST project
Extended Virtual Humans to have orientations and strategiesImplement appropriate zero-level strategies
Vhuman must act appropriately given orientation and pressure
Use system to Teach effective 1st-level strategies Vhuman Recognize effect of 1st-level moves Vhuman changes orientation and strategy as appropriate
Modelling TrustModelling Trust
Represented as Variable 0 (no trust) to 1 (full trust)
Initial value can be setUpdated as a result of interaction
Linear combination of three components Familiarity (observance of polite social norms)
Solidarity (same goals) Credibility (shared beliefs)
Used to update beliefs based on reports (commitments, promises, belief attribution)
Used in assessing proposals
Implementing Negotiation Implementing Negotiation Strategies Strategies
Orientations result from appraisal of negotiation itself Reified negotiation “task” Interactions with goals and plans
Strategies chosen as part of coping Entry & exit conditions
Strategies associated with communicative behavior Base posture and gesture set Choice of dialogue moves
Speech act and realization Initiative, topic selection, and type of grounding feedback
Affective tone Aspects of interpretation
Charitability of interpretation Assumptions vs clarification
Avoidance StrategyAvoidance StrategyEntry Conditions
Negotiation costs outweigh benefits Avoidable
Exit conditions Not avoidable (2 subsequent mentions of plan-related tasks or state)
Move is desirable? Trust is <0.2
Moves Avoid (mention something other than plan-related tasks or states)
Escape (pre-closing: try to leave the conversation)
Attack StrategyAttack Strategy
Entry Conditions Not avoidable Move has less utility than staying
Exit Conditions Move has high utility Trust is below 0.2
Moves Bring up problems
Pre-condition not met Necessary task that is not commited to Difference in utility
Negotiate StrategyNegotiate Strategy
Entry Conditions Not avoidable? Move has more utility than staying
Exit Conditions Committed agreement Trust is below 0.2
Moves Try to gain commitment on tasks
Offer/suggestion, acceptance
““Failure” StrategyFailure” Strategy
Entry Conditions Trust below 0.2
Exit Conditions None (end conversation)
Moves Reject move
““Success” StrategySuccess” Strategy
Entry Conditions Committed agreement
Exit Conditions None (end conversation)
Moves Accept move
Current & Next StepsCurrent & Next StepsMore Evaluation Extensions to model
Additional strategies & tactics (e.g., rejection of empathy)
1st & 2nd-order strategiesUse as learning system
Targeted instruction and training After-action review (XAI - van Lent, Core, Lane)
New Scenarios Use of culture-specific elements