Evaluating plan recognition systems: three properties of a good explanation

Artificial Intelligence Review

Volumn 14, Issue 4-5, 2000, Pages 351-376

  Mayfield, James ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY APPLIED PHYSICS LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; EVALUATION; INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SYSTEMS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS; UNIX;

DIALOGUE SYSTEMS; EXPLANATION; PLAN AND GOAL ANALYZER; PLAN RECOGNITION; PLAN RECOGNITION SYSTEMS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 0034290359     PISSN: 02692821     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1026411904041     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Allen, J.F. (1979). A Plan-Based Approach to Speech Act Recognition. Ph.D. thesis, Technical Report 131/79, Computer Science Department, University of Toronto.
2. Allen, J.F. & Perrault, C.R. (1980). Analyzing Intention in Utterances. Artificial Intelligence 15(3): 143-178.
3. Appelt, D.E. (1985). Planning English Referring Expressions. Artificial Intelligence 26(1): 1-33.
4. Appelt, D.E. & Pollack, M.E. (1992). Weighted Abduction for Plan Ascription. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 2(1-2): 1-25.
5. Braverman, M.S. & Russell, S.J. (1988). IMEX: Overcoming Intractability in Explanation Based Learning. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 575-579. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
6. Calistri-Yeh, R.J. (1991). Utilizing User Models to Handle Ambiguity and Misconceptions in Robust Plan Recognition. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1(4): 289-322.
7. Carberry, S. (1986). TRACK: Toward a Robust Natural Language Interface. In Proceedings of the Canadian National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 84-88.
8. Chin, D. (1988). Intelligent Agents as a Basis for Natural Language Interfaces. Ph.D. thesis, Technical Report UCB/CSD 88/396, Computer Science Department, University of California, Berkeley, California.
9. Eller, R. & Carberry, S. (1992). A Meta-rule Approach to Flexible Plan Recognition in Dialogue. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 2(1-2): 27-53.
10. Fikes, R.E. & Nilsson, N.J. (1971). STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving. Artificial Intelligence 2: 189-208.
11. Grosz, B. & Sidner, C.L. (1985). The Structures of Discourse Structure. Technical Report CSLI-85-39, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
12. Hirschberg, J. (1984). Toward a Redefinition of Yes/no Questions. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 48-51. Palo Alto: International Committee on Computational Linguistics.
13. Kass, R. & Finin, T. (1988). Modeling the User in Natural Language Systems. Computational Linguistics 14(3): 5-22.
14. Litman, D.J. (1985). Plan Recognition and Discourse Analysis: An Integrated Approach for Understanding Dialogues. Ph.D. thesis, Technical Report TR170, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester.
15. Mayfield, J. (1989). Goal Analysis: Plan Recognition in Dialogue Systems. Ph.D. thesis, Technical Report UCB 89/521, Computer Science Division (EECS), University of California, Berkeley, California.
16. Mayfield, J. (1992). Controlling Inference in Plan Recognition. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 2(1-2): 83-115.
17. Norvig, P. (1988). Multiple Simultaneous Interpretations of Ambiguous Sentences. In Program of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
18. Pollack, M.E. (1984). Good Answers to Bad Questions: Goal Inference in Expert Advicegiving. Technical Report MS-CIS-84-15, Computer Science Department, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
19. Quilici, A.E. (1989). Detecting and Responding to Plan-oriented Misconceptions. In Kobsa, A. and Wahlster, W. (eds.) User Models in Dialog Systems, 108-132. Springer Verlag: Berlin.
20. Quilici, A.E., Dyer, M.G. & Flowers, M. (1985). Understanding and Advice Giving in AQUA. Technical Report UCLA-AI-85-19, Computer Science Department, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
21. Raskutti, B. & Zukerman, I. (1991). Generation and Selection of Likely Interpretation During Plan Recognition in Task-oriented Consultation Systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1(4): 323-353.
22. Retz-Schmidt, G. (1991). Recognizing Intentions, Interactions, and Causes of Plan Failures. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1(2): 173-202.
23. Schank, R. & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.
24. Schank, R.C. (1986). Explanation Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and Creatively. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.
25. Wilensky, R. (1978). Understanding Goal-Based Stories. Ph.D. thesis, Research Report 140, Computer Science Department, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
26. Wilensky, R. (1983). Planning and Understanding: A Computational Approach to Human Reasoning. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
27. Wilensky, R. (1987). Some Problems and Proposals for Knowledge Representation. Memorandum UCB/CSD 87/351, University of California, Berkeley, California.
28. Wilensky, R., Arens, Y. & Chin, D. (1984). Talking to UNIX in English: An Overview of UC. Communications of the ACM 27(6): 575-593.
29. Wilensky, R., Chin, D., Luria, M., Martin, J., Mayfield, J. & Wu, D. (1988). The Berkeley UNIX Consultant Project. Computational Linguistics 14(4): 35-84.