interactive communication management in an issue- based dialogue system diabruck 2003 staffan...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
223 views
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Interactive Communication Management in an Issue-based Dialogue System
DiaBruck 2003
Staffan LarssonGöteborg University, Sweden
![Page 2: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Overview
• Interactive Communication Management (ICM)
• ”Verification” in dialogue systems• Classifying and formalising feedback• Feedback moves for GoDiS• Issue-based grounding• Formalising sequencing moves for
GoDiS• Conclusions & Future work
![Page 3: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
ICM (Allwood)
• Interactive Communication Management – As opposed to Own Communication Management
(OCM): self-corrections, hesitations, etc.
• Feedback moves– (short) utterances which signal grounding status of
previous utterance (”mm”, ”right”, ”ok”, ”pardon?”, ”huh?” etc.)
• Sequencing moves– utterances which signal dialogue structure (”so”,
”now”, ”right”, ”anyway” etc.)
• Turntaking moves
![Page 4: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
ICM in current commercial systems
• Usually, limited to ”verification”• Examples (San Segundo et. al. 2001)
– I understood you want to depart from Madrid. Is that correct? [”explicit v.”]
– You leave from Madrid. Where are you arriving at? [”implicit v.”]
• Involves repetition or reformulation • Appears in H-H dialogue, but not very
common
![Page 5: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
From verification to ICM in dialogue systems
• ”Verification” is just one type of ICM behaviour– Perhaps the one most cruicial in dialogue systems
given poor speech recognition
• Could a wider range of the ICM behaviour occurring in H-H dialogue be useful in dialogue systems?
• We want a typology of ICM moves for H-H dialogue– Feedback and sequencing moves
• We want to formalise it and use it in a system– Still we will implement only a subset
• We want to relate it to grounding in a system
![Page 6: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Classifying feedback
• Level of action• Polarity• Eliciting or non-eliciting• Form (syntactic realisation)• Content type (object- or metalevel)
![Page 7: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Feedback levels
• Action levels in dialogue (Allwood, Clark, Ginzburg)– Contact: whether a channel of communication is
established– Perception: whether DPs are perciveving each other’s
utterances– Understanding: Whether DPs are understanding each
other’s utterances• Non-contextual (”semantic”) meaning• Contextual (”pragmatic”) meaning
– Acceptance: Whether DPs are accepting each other’s utterances
• The function of feedback is to signal the status of utterance processing on all levels
![Page 8: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Feedback polarity
• Polarity (Allwood et.al. 1992)– Positive: indicates contact, perception, understanding,
acceptance– Negative: indicates lack of contact, perception,
understanding, acceptance– We add a ”neutral” or ”checking” polarity – there is one
or more hypotheses, but the DP lacks confidence in them
• Examples – ”I don’t understand”: negative– ”Do you mean that the destination is Paris?”: checking– ”To Paris.”: positive– ”Pardon”: negative
![Page 9: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Formalising ICM dialogue moves
• Level– con: contact– per: perception– sem: semantic understanding (no context)– und: pragmatic understanding (relevance in context)– acc: acceptance
• Polarity– pos: positive– neg: negative– chk: checking
![Page 10: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Feedback move notation
• icm:Level*Polarity{:Args}• Examples
– icm:per*pos:String – ”I heard you say ’londres’”
– icm:und*neg – ”Sorry, I don’t understand”– icm:und*chk:AltQ – ”Do you mean x or y?”– icm:und*pos:P – ”To Paris.”– icm:acc*neg:Q – ”Sorry, I can’t answer Q”– icm:acc*pos – ”Okay”
![Page 11: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
GoDiS: an issue-based dialogue system
• Explores and implements Issue-based dialogue management (Larsson 2002)– Based on Ginzburg’s notion of a dialogue
gameboard involving Questions Under Discussion (QUD)
– Uses (mostly pre-scripted) dialogue plans
• Extends theory to more flexible dialogue– Multiple tasks, information sharing between tasks – ICM: feedback and grounding, sequencing– Question accommodation, re-raising, clarification– Inquiry-oriented, action-oriented, negotiative
dialogue
![Page 12: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
System feedback for user utterances in GoDIS
• contact– negative (”I didn’t hear anything from you.”, ”Hello?”)
[icm:con*neg]
• perception– negative: fb-phrase (”Pardon?”, ”I didn’t hear what you
said”) [icm:per*neg]– positive: repetition (”I heard ’to paris’”)
[icm:per*pos:String]
• semantic understanding:– negative: fb-phrase (”I don’t understand”) [icm:sem*neg]– positive: reformulation (”Paris.”) [icm:sem*pos:Content]
![Page 13: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
System feedback, cont’d
• pragmatic understanding– negative: fb-phrase (”I don’t quite understand”)
[icm:und*neg]– positive: reformulation (”To Paris.”)
[icm:und*pos:Content]– checking: reformulation (”To Paris, is that correct?”,
”To Paris?”) [icm:und*chk:Content]
• acceptance/integration– negative:fb-phrase with reformulation (”Sorry, I
cannot answer Q”, ”Sorry, Paris is not a valid destination city.”) [icm:acc*neg:Content]
– positive: fb-word (”okay.”) [icm:acc*pos]
![Page 14: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Feedback selection
• Feedback polarity selected depending on:1. Contact: Whether any speech is observed 2. Perception: Speech recognition score > threshold3. Semantics: Whether system can find a non-contextual
interpretation4. Pragmatic understanding: Whether system can find a relevant
contextual interpretation– none: extremely high score (certain of interpretation)– Positive: high score (pretty sure of interpretation)– Checking: medium score (not so sure)– Negative: low score (very unsure)
5. Acceptance: Whether system can accept what has been said• General principles
– Produce positive feedback only on highest possible level– When producing negative feedback on level N, produce positive
feedback on level N-1
![Page 15: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Feedback on multiple levels
S> Lets see. What can I do for you? U> (mumble mumble)S> Sorry, I didnt hear what you said. What can I do for you?
U> siridusS> I heard you say siridus . Sorry, I dont understand. What can Ido for you?
U> channel oneS> channel one. I dont quite understand. Do you want to add aprogram or change channel?
Negative perception
feeback
Positive perception
Negative understanding
Positive understanding
(word meaning)
Negative understanding
(relevance) (Task clarification)
![Page 16: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
U> turn on the t vS> turn on the TV… Sorry, I cannot control the TV set. Do you want to
add a program or change channel?”
U> pardonS> Sorry, I cannot control the TV set. Do you want to add a program or
change channel?U> change channelS> Okay.
Rejection(negative
acceptance feedback)
Positiveunderstanding
User negative perception
System repetition
Positiveacceptance
![Page 17: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Reactions to positive and checking feedback
• After check feedback, – (e.g., ”channel one, is that correct?”)– positive response is needed, or system will
assume it was wrong
• After positive feedback, – (e.g., ”channel one.”)– if user gives no response or positive response,
system continues to assume it was right;– If user gives negative response, system
assumes it was wrong• correcting the system
![Page 18: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Correcting the system
S> Lets see. What can I do for you? U> add programS> Okay. Add a program…S> Lets see. What channel do you want? U> channel sixS> OK, channel five.U> noS> not channel five. So, What channel do you want? U> channel sixS> Okay. channel six.”
Positive feedback
Negative answer to fb.
![Page 19: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Issue-based grounding
• Checking feedback on und-level explicitly raises understanding-issue – icm:und*chk:C raises ?und(C)
• ”Is C the meaning of the previous utterance?”– Positive response leads to adding C to shared commitments– Negative or no response leads to no action
• Positive understanding feedback does not raise the understanding-issue explicitly– In fact, tentatively assumes it has been positively resolved – but makes it available for interpretation of short answers
• in this case, ”yes” or ”no”– Negative reponse leads to retracting C– Positive or no response leads to no action
• So far, only implemented for understanding level
![Page 20: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
ISSUES, QUD and accommdation
• We distinguish QUD and ISSUES:– QUD (local): Questions available for resolution of
short answers– ISSUES (global): Issues/questions that have been
raised but not yet resolved
• QUD-to-ISSUES accommodation– If an answer is given which does not address any
question on ISSUES, – But does address a question Q on QUD– Then, accommodate Q to ISSUES (this amounts to
raising Q)
![Page 21: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Feedback, ISSUES and QUD
• Assume previous move had content C• Checking feedback
– Push ?und(C) on ISSUES and QUD• Positive feedback
– Add C to shared commitments– Push ?und(C) on QUD (but not on ISSUES)– ”yes” or ”no” do QUD-to-ISSUES accommodation
• Integrating responses to understanding-issues– Done by a single rule, regardless of how the understanding-
issue was raised– Given that ?und(C) is on ISSUES,– ”yes” add C to shared commitments if not already there– ”no” retract C from shared commitments if it’s there
(actually, backtrack to saved previous shared commitments)
![Page 22: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Negative response to positive feedback
S> Lets see. What channel do you want? U> channel six
S> OK, channel five.
channel (5) added to shared commitments;?und(channel (5)) on QUD
U> noQUD-to-ISSUES accommodation
?und(channel (5)) on ISSUESintegrate ”no”
retract channel(5)S> not channel five. So, What channel do you want?
![Page 23: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Negative response to cheking feedback
S> Lets see. What can I do for you? U> add programS> Okay. Add a program…S> Lets see. What channel do you want? U> channel six
S> channel five??und(channel (5)) on ISSUES and QUD
U> nointegrate ”no” ( do nothing)
S> So, What channel do you want? U> channel sixS> Okay. channel six.”
![Page 24: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Sequencing ICM
• Discourse particles– ”so” may be used to reraise a previously
discussed question– ”right”, ”anyway”, ”let’s see…”
• Verbose sequencing– ”Let’s talk about …”, ”Let’s return to the
issue of …”
• How do we classify these?– We correlate them with updates to the
common ground
![Page 25: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Sequencing moves generated by GoDiS
• Formal notation schema:– icm:Type{:Content}
• Loading a dialogue plan– icm:loadplan – ”let’s see.”
• Question accommodation– icm:accommodate – ”alright.”
• Reraising an issue– icm:reraise – ”so, ”– icm:reraise:Q – ”returning to the issue of
…”
![Page 26: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Sequencing ICM: reraising issue, loading a plan
S> Welcome to the travel agency! U> price information S> (…) Lets see. How do you want to travel? U> by flightS> (…) What city do you want to go to? U> parisS> (…) What city do you want to go from? U> do I need a visa ?S> (…) Lets see. What country are you from? U> swedenS> Okay. Yes, you need a Visa. S> Returning to the issue of price. Lets see. What city do
you want to go from?
Signals loading a plan
Reraising an issue explicitly
![Page 27: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Sequencing ICM: Accommodation
S> Lets see. What can I do for you?U> channel five today
S> Alright. add a program… Lets see. Okay. channel five… today… What time do you want to start recording?
U> from six thirty to seven thirtyS> Okay. from six thirty… to seven thirty… The
program has been added. ”
Signals accommodation
![Page 28: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Future work
• Replace current ad-hoc forms based on corpus studies and existing work– ”discourse markers” (Schiffrin)– ”cue phrases” (Grosz & Sidner and others)
• ”Real” generation rather than templates– Integrate ICM with other utterances, rather than just
appending them
• Explore other ways of generating ICM– Intonation, facial expression, etc.
• Extend the range of ICM generated (and interpreted) by the system
• Extend issue-based grounding to all levels
![Page 29: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Conclusions• By extending the range of ICM used by
systems, their communication becomes more natural and comprehensive
• We have provided an initial classification of feedback and sequencing ICM useful in a dialogue system, and implemented it
• Issue-based grounding provides mechanisms allowing the user to react to system feedback
• Sequencing moves can be correlated with updates to common ground, and used to signal these updates to the user
![Page 30: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Questions?
![Page 31: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Relation to Traum’s computational theory of grounding
• Focus on positive feedback and corrections (self and other)– Deals with the question, when does a contribution
end? Related to turntaking.– Focus on self- and other-corrections (not included
here); involves turntaking and OCM, but also feedback– Does not include sequencing ICM– Based on the TRAINS corpus of H-H dialogue ->
(arguably) focus on positive feedback
• Focus on understanding-level– ”grounding” here refers only to the understanding
level – Acceptance and rejection seen as ”core speech acts”
![Page 32: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Object- or metalevel content
• Utterances with metalevel content explicitly refer to contact, perception, understanding or acceptance
• Object-level utterances instead refer to the task at hand• Example
– S: What city are you going to?– U: Paris– S(1a): Did you say you’re going to Paris? [meta]– S(1b): Are you going to Paris? [object]– S(2a): Do you mean Paris, France or Paris, Texas?– S(2b): Do you want to go to Paris, France or Paris, Texas?
• This dimension does not apply to all feedback, e.g. ”Paris.”, ”Pardon?”
• (Is 2b feedback or simply an alternative question?)
![Page 33: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Realisation of feedback moves
• Syntactic 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.”
• In general, the exact formulation of ICM phrases may depend on various contextual factors– including activity, noise level, time constraints etc.
![Page 34: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Eliciting / nonelciting feedback (Allwood et. al. 1992)
• Eliciting feedback is intended to evoke a response from the user
• Noneliciting feedback is not so intended– But may nevertheless recieve a response
• Rough correspondence / operationalisation– Checking feedback is eliciting; explicitly raises
grounding issue– Positive feedback is noneliciting; may implicitly raise
grounding issue
• What about negative feedback?– ”pardon?”,”huh?”: eliciting?– ”I didn’t hear you”: noneliciting?
![Page 35: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Simplifying assumptions regarding feedback
• We only represent action level and polarity• Eliciting/noneliciting dimension implicit
– Negative feedback is eliciting in some sense; since something went wrong, it must be fixed
– Checking feedback is also eliciting, since it poses a question that must be adressed
– Positive feedback is not eliciting (we assume)
• Syntactic form not included in classification; decided by generation module
• Metalevel / object level perhaps not so interesting unless full compositional semantics are used– ”Do you mean that you want to Paris?” vs. ”Do you want
to go to Paris?”
![Page 36: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Implicit feedback?• Clark: ”relevant followup” to U counts as positive
feedback– What is relevant?
• simple cases for followups to questions:– answer to question– ”subquestion”– feedback concering question
• Complex cases: all other utterances– In general, complex inference and knowledge may be needed
(implicatures)– Currently, irrelevant followup counts as negative feedback (a
cautious assumption)
• What about no followup at all?– in reaction to ask-move or interrogative feedback, counts as
negative– in reaction to answer or positive feedback, counts as positive
![Page 37: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Rejection?
S: ”Where do you want to go?”U1: ”Nowhere”U2: ”I don’t know”
• Should these count as rejections?– U1: negative answer? presupposition
failiure? rejection?– U2: rejection?
• but not as definite as ”No comment!”
![Page 38: Interactive Communication Management in an Issue- based Dialogue System DiaBruck 2003 Staffan Larsson Göteborg University, Sweden sl@ling.gu.se](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649d2a5503460f949fe8d6/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Grounding
• ”To ground a thing … is to establish it as part of common ground well enough for current purposes.” (Clark)
• making sure that the participants are percieving, understanding, and accepting each other’s utterances