MODELING TIME AND META-REASONING IN DIALOGUE VIA ACTIVE LOGIC

AAAI Fall Symposium - Technical Report

Volumn FS-99-03, Issue , 1999, Pages 93-99

  Perlis, D ^a   Purang, K ^a   Purushothaman, D ^a   Andersen, C ^a   Traum, D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

ACTIVE LOGIC; INCONSISTENT DATA; LIMITED MEMORY; METAREASONING; MODELLING TIME;

BLENDING;

EID: 84905195993     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. Baddeley, A. D. 1990. Humanmemory: theory and practice. Allyn &Bacon.
2. Chapman, M. 1993. Everyday reasoning and the revision of belief. In Mechanisms of everyday cognition. L. Erlbaum Associates.
3. Cheng, P. W., and Holyoak, K. J. 1985. Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology 17:391-416.
4. Cheng, P. W.; Holyoak, K. J.; Nisbett, R. E.; and Oliver, L. M.1986. Pragmatic versus syntactic approaches to training deductive re asoning. Cognitive Psychology 18:293-328.
5. Cosmides, L. 1989. The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humansreason? studies with the wason selection task. Cognition 31:187-276.
6. Dessalles, J. L. 1998. Casual conversation as logical constraint satisfaction. In Allwood, J., ed., Proceedings of the workshopon pragmatics andlogic, 27-34.
7. Elgot-Drapkin, J., and Perlis, D. 1990. Reasoning situated in time I: Basic concepts. Journal of ExperimentalandTheoretical Artificial Intelligence 2(1):75-98.
8. Elio, R., and Pelletier, F. J. 1994. Onrelevance in non-monotonic reasoning: someempirical studies. In Relevance Working notes AAAI9-Fall Symposium.
9. Ferguson, G. M.; Alien, J. F.; Miller, B. W.; and Ringger, E. K. 1996. The design and implementation of the TRAINS-96system: A prototype mixed-initiative planning assistant. TRAINSTechnical Note 96-5, University of Rochester.
10. Galotti, K. 1989. Approachesto studying formal and everyday reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 105:331-351.
11. Grice, H. P. 1967. Logic and Conversation. William James Lectures. Harvard University.
12. Gurney, J.; Perlis, D.; and Purang, K. 1997. Interpreting presuppositions using active logic: From contexts to utterances. ComputationalIntelligence.
13. Miller, M. 1993. A View of One's Past and Other Aspects of ReasonedChangein Belief. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
14. Myers, K. L. 1997. User Guide for the Procedural Reasoning System. SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
15. Nelson, T. O. 1992. Metacognition: Core readings. Allyn &: Bacon.
16. Nirkhe, M.; Kraus, S.; Miller, M.; and Perlis, D. 1997. Howto (plan to) meet a deadline between now and then. Journal of logic computation 7(1):109-156.
17. Oaksford, M., and Chater, N. 1993. Reasoning theories and bounded rationality. In Manktelow, K. I., and Over, D. E., eds., Rationality: psychological and philosophical perspectives. Routledge. 31-60.
18. Perlis, D.; Gurney, J.; and Purang, K. 1996. Active logic applied to cancellation of Gricean implicature. In Working notes, AAAI 96 Spring Symposium on Computational Implicature. AAAI.
19. Perlis, D.; Purang, K.; and Andersen, C. 1998. Conversational adequacy: Mistakes are the essense. International Journal of HumanComputerStudies 553-575.
20. Puckett, J. M.; Pollina, L. K.; Laipple, J. S.; Tunick, R. H.; and Jurden, F. H. 1993. A survey of research in everyday cognition: ten views. In Mechanisms of everyday cognition. L. ErlbaumAssociates.
21. Savignon, S. 1983. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Addison-Wesley.
22. Sinnott, J. D., and Cook, J. 1989. An overview-if not a taxonomy- of "Everyday Problems" used in research. In Sinnott, J. D., ed., Everyday problem solving: theory andapplications. Praeger.
23. Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance: communication and cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
24. Tarone, E. 1981. Somethoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOLQuarterly 15(3):285-295.
25. Traum, D., and Andersen, C. 1999. Representations of dialogue state for domain and task independent meta-dialogue. In Proceedings of the IJCAIg9 workshop: Knowledge And Reasoning in Practical Dialogue Systems, 113-120.
26. Wason, P. C., and Green, D. W. 1984. Reasoning and mental representation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 36A:597-610.