Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU [email protected] OFTI 2002,...
-
date post
21-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU [email protected] OFTI 2002,...
![Page 1: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Grounding in dialogue systems
Staffan LarssonInst. för lingvistik, GU
[email protected] 2002, Göteborg
![Page 2: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Overview
• Background• Interactive Communication
Management (ICM)• Action levels and metaissues• Feedback properties• Update strategies• ICM and grounding for a dialogue
system
![Page 3: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Background
• Research on dialogue and dialogue systems– TRINDI (1997-2000)– SDS (1997-1998)– SIRIDUS (2000-2002)– D’Homme (2001)
• Implementation– TrindiKit: toolkit for building dialogue systems,
information state approach– GoDiS: dialogue system; issue-based dialogue
management; implemented using TrindiKit
![Page 4: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
GoDiS in SIRIDUS• explore and implement issue-based dialogue
management– adapt Ginzburg’s KOS to dialogue system (GoDiS) and
implement– extend theory to handle more flexible dialogue (incl.
grounding, accommodation, action-oriented dialogue, negotiation, conditional responses)
– implement extensions
• separating general and domain-dependent phenomena helps reconfigurability– general theory of dialogue– extended into subtheories for different dialogue genres– domain knowledge clearly separated– minimize effort for adapting to new genres and domains
![Page 5: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
TrindiKit
GoDiS
GoDiS-I GoDiS-A
TravelAgency
Auto-route
Xeroxmanual
VCRmanager
basic IBDM
homedevice
manager
ISapproach
action-oriented
IBDM
T.A. domain
knowledge
inquiry-oriented
IBDM
![Page 6: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Basic issue-based dialogue management
• dialogue is, basically, all about raising and addressing issues– incl. short answers– issue reraising and accommodation
• starting point: KOS framework [Ginzburg]– Dialogue Gameboard (DGB)– related DGB update protocols
• dialogue moves: ask, answer, (greet, quit)• other features
– dialogue plans– handling multiple simultaneous issues– information sharing between plans
• initial genre: enquiry-oriented dialogue (database search)• sample domain: travel agency
![Page 7: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Interactive Communication Management [Allwood]
• feedback– purpose: regulate grounding (adding to common ground)
[Clark]– feedback moves reflect grounding status of utterances
• turntaking ICM– purpose: regulate turntaking– turntaking moves reflects turntaking structure of dialogue
• sequencing– purpose:
• coordination of common ground other than grounding• indicating ”internal” mental moves affecting common ground
– sequencing moves reflects dialogue structure (part of common ground)
![Page 8: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Action levels in dialogue [Allwood, Clark]
• contact• perception• understanding• acceptance
![Page 9: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Grounding and action levels
• ”To ground a thing … is to establish it as part of common ground well enough for current purposes.” [Clark]
• grounding applies to all action levels– not just understanding
• U is grounded on level L iff– the grounding issue on level L is positively resolved
• grounding assumptions correspond to information state updates in system
![Page 10: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Feedback polarity [Allwood et al ’91]
• polarity: positive, negative– indicating e.g. understanding (+) or lack thereof (-)
• eliciting/non-eliciting (evocative/non-evoc.)– whether utterance introduces obligation to respond
• Examples– ”What do you mean?”
• negative, eliciting– ”Do you mean that the destination is Paris?”
• ??negative??, eliciting– ”To Paris.”
• positive, non-eliciting– ”Pardon?”
• negative, eliciting
![Page 11: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Form and content of ICM dialogue moves
• Form:– declarative: ”I didn’t hear what you said.”; ”The
destination city is Paris.”– interrogative: ”What did you say?”; ”Do you want to go
to Paris?”– imperative: ”Please repeat your latest utterance!”– elliptical
• interrogative: ”Paris?”, ”To Paris or from Paris?”• declarative: ”To Paris.”
• Content:– object-level: ”To Paris?”, ”Do you want to go to Paris?”– metalevel: ”Did you mean you want to go to Paris?”– none (except polarity): ”Pardon?”, ”OK”
![Page 12: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
ICM in GoDiS
• Grounding moves– all four action levels– simplified polarities– coarse-grained semantics– no detailed account of form; template-based generation
• Sequencing moves– reraising issues– loading dialogue plans– question accommodation
• Turntaking moves– no account of turntaking moves; strict turntaking
enforced
![Page 13: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Feedback polarities in GoDiS
• how far can we get with meta-issues? – we don’t model obligations– all feedback introduces or answers meta-issues – meta-issues may or may not be responded to; system
must be able to deal with both
• 3 ”polarities”, mutually exclusive– positive: pos
• implicitly introduces question such as ”was p a correct interpretation of U?”
– negative: neg• answers question such as ”did B understand U?”
– eliciting->interrogative: int• explicitly raises question, e.g. ”What does U mean?”
![Page 14: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Some ICM dialogue moves
• feedback– icm:Level{*Polarity}{:Content}– icm:und*neg – ”I don’t understand”– icm:und*pos:P – ”To Paris.”– icm:und*int:Q – ”Did you mean to Paris or from
Paris?”– icm:acc*neg:Q – ”Sorry, I can’t answer Q”– icm:acc*pos – ”Okay”
• sequencing– icm:Type{:Content}– icm:reraise:Q – ”Returning to the issue Q”– icm:loadplan – ”Let’s see…”
![Page 15: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
System feedback for user utterances
• contact– negative (”I didn’t hear anything from you.”, ”hello”)
• perception– negative: fb-phrase (”Pardon?”, ”I didn’t hear what you said”)– positive: repetition (”I heard ’to paris’”)
• understanding– negative: fb-phrase (”I don’t quite understand”)– positive: reformulation (”To Paris.”)– interrogative: reformulation (”To Paris, is that correct?”, ”To
Paris?”)• acceptance/integration
– negative: fb-phrase with reformulation (”Sorry, I cannot answer Q”, ”Sorry, Paris is not a valid destination city.”)
– positive: fb-word (”Okay.”)
![Page 16: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
User feedback for system utterances
• contact: -• perception
– negative: fb-phrase (”Pardon?”, ”I didn’t hear what you said”)
• understanding: -• acceptance/integration
– negative (for questions): fb-phrase (”I don’t know”, ”Never mind”)
– positive: fb-word (”okay.”)
![Page 17: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Grounding update strategies
• strategic questions:– When should U assumed to be grounded on level L?
• as soon as it has been uttered (of course, the hearer cannot assume grounding until grounding wh-issues have some answer, e.g. ”what did A say?” )
• if B does not give negative feedback• when B gives positive feedback• when B has given eliciting feedback which has been
confirmed by A
– What to do if the grounding assumption turns out to be mistaken
![Page 18: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Grounding update strategies cont’d
• optimism on level L:– assume U is grounded on level L as soon as
U has been uttered
• cautious optimism:– make sure the optimistic assumption can
easily be retracted
• pessimism:– don’t assume U grounded until there has
been some positive feedback (or at least no negative feedback)
![Page 19: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
choice of strategies in system
• system utterances– optimistically assumed to be grounded on all levels– negative feedback on perception or acceptance levels ->
backtrack to saved state• user utterances
– if problem on any level, give corresponding negative fb• if several alternatives available, give interrogative fb
– if OK on all levels, update strategy and feedback determined by recognition score
– S > 0.9• optimistic update, icm:acc*pos
– 0.9 >= S > 0.8• optimistic update, icm:acc*pos, icm:und*pos:Content
– 0.8 >= S >0.5• pessimistic update, ask(?Content)• if ?Content recieves answer ”yes”, add assume Content grounded
![Page 20: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
S> Welcome to the travel agency! U> price information pleaseS> OK, you want to know about price, is that correct?icm:acc*pos icm:und*int:?issue(price)U> yesS> Lets see. How do you want to travel? U> by flightS> OK, by flight. What city do you want to go to?icm:acc*pos icm:und*pos:means_of_transport(fly) …U> do I need a visa ?…S> Lets see. What country are you from? icm:loadplanU> swedenS> Okay. You are a citizen of Sweden. Yes, you need a Visa. S> Returning to the issue of price… icm:reraise:?x.price(x)…S> What month do you want to leave?U> Don’t know icm:acc*neg…
![Page 21: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Recommended reading!
• Staffan Larsson (2002): Issue-based Dialogue Management. PhD Thesis.
• Download the system– www.ling.gu.se/~sl/Thesis
• SIRIDUS project– www.ling.gu.se/projekt/siridus
![Page 22: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
rejections
• rejection of question Q– inability to answer Q
• ”Sorry, I can’t answer that question”– unwillingness to answer Q
• ”I don’t want to discuss that”
• rejection of proposition as issue– unwillingness to discuss whether ?P
• ”I don’t want to discuss that”– other reasons?
• rejection of proposition– ”Sorry, I don’t agree.”, ”You’re wrong!”, ”That’s
impossible!”– can be expected to lead to argumentation
![Page 23: Grounding in dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Inst. för lingvistik, GU sl@ling.gu.se OFTI 2002, Göteborg.](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022032521/56649d5e5503460f94a3e125/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
problematic cases
S: ”Where do you want to go?”U1: ”Nowhere”U2: ”I don’t know”U3: (silence) OR ”I want first class!”
• do these count as rejections?– U1: negative answer? presupposition failiure?
rejection?– U2: rejection?
• but not as definite as ”No comment!”
– U3: rejection? • in any case, irrelevant followup