Abductive understanding of dialogues about joint activities

Interaction Studies

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 426-454

  Langley, Pat ^a,b   Meadows, Ben ^b   Gabaldon, Alfredo ^a   Heald, Richard ^b  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Abductive inference; Dialogue understanding; Mental state ascription; Mind reading

Indexed keywords

EID: 84923352368     PISSN: 15720373     EISSN: 15720381     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/is.15.3.04lan     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Allen, J.F., Byron, D.K., Dzikovska, M., Ferguson, G., Galescu, L., & Stent, A. (2001). Toward conversational human-computer interaction. AI Magazine, 22(4), 27-37.
2. Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI: 10.2307/2269960
4. Ballim, A., Wilks, Y., & Barnden, J. (1991). Belief ascription, metaphor, and intentional identification. Cognitive Science, 15, 133-171. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog1501-4
5. Barbella, D.M., & Forbus, K.D. (2011). Analogical dialogue acts: Supporting learning by reading analogies in instructional texts. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1429-1435). San Francisco, CA: AAAI Press.
6. Bridewell, W., & Isaac, A. (2011). Recognizing deception: A model of dynamic belief attribution. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2011 Fall Symposium on Advances in Cognitive Systems. Arlington, VA: AAAI Press.
7. Bridewell, W., & Langley, P. (2011). A computational account of everyday abductive inference. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston.
8. Bullwinkle, C.L. (1975). Picnics, kittens and wigs: Using scenarios for the sentence completion task. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 383-386).
9. Cahn, J.E., & Brennan, S.E. (1999). A psychological model of grounding and repair in dialog. In Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Psychological Models of Communication in Collaborative Systems (pp. 25-33). North Falmouth, MA: AAAI Press.
10. Carberry, S., & Lambert, L. (1999a). A process model for recognizing communicative acts and modeling negotiation subdialogues. Computational Linguistics, 25, 1-53. DOI: 10.3115/981967.981992
11. Clark, H.H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/s0022226798217361
12. Cohen, P. (1997). Dialogue modeling. In R.A. Cole (Ed.), Survey of the state of the art in human language technology, Cambridge Studies In Natural Language Processing (pp. 204-210). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Gabaldon, A., Langley, P., & Meadows, B. (2013). Integrating meta-level and domain-level knowledge for interpretation and generation of task-oriented dialogue. In Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Advances in Cognitive Systems (pp. 171-186). Baltimore, MD: Cognitive Systems Foundation.
14. Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
15. Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York, NY: Academic Press. DOI: 10.1017/s0022226700005296
16. Hobbs, J.R., Stickel, M.E., Appelt, D.E., & Martin, P.A. (1993). Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence, 63, 69-142. DOI: 10.1016/0004-3702(93)90015-4
17. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-1616-1
18. Litman, D. (1985). Plan recognition and discourse analysis: An integrated approach for understanding dialogues. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical Report 170, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester.
19. McRoy, S., & Hirst, G. (1995). The repair of speech act misunderstandings by abductive inference. Computational linguistics, 21, 435-478.
20. Meadows, B., Langley, P., & Emery, M. (2013a). Seeing beyond shadows: Incremental abductive reasoning for plan understanding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Plan, Activity, and Intent Recognition (pp. 24-31). Bellevue, WA: AAAI Press.
21. Meadows, B., Langley, P., & Emery, M. (2013b). Understanding social interactions using incremental abductive inference. In Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Advances in Cognitive Systems (pp. 39-56). Baltimore, MD: Cognitive Systems Foundation.
22. Neches, R., Langley, P., & Klahr, D. (1987). Learning, development, and production systems. In D. Klahr, P. Langley, & R. Neches (Eds.), Production system models of learning and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Ng, H.T., & Mooney, R.J. (1990). On the role of coherence in abductive explanation. In Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 337-342). Boston, MA: AAAI Press.
24. Perrault, C.F., & Allen, J.F. (1980). A plan-based analysis of indirect speech acts. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 6, 167-182.
25. Polanyi, R., & Scha, R. (1984). A syntactic approach to discourse semantics. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 413-419). Stanford, CA: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI: 10.3115/980431.980576
26. Reichman, R. (1981). Plain-speaking: A theory and grammar of spontaneous discourse. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
27. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York, NY: Academic Press. DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2
28. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/s0012217300029073
29. Thagard, P. R. (1978). The best explanation: Criteria for theory choice. The Journal of Philosophy, 75(2), 76-92.
30. Tomai, E., & Forbus, K.D. (2009) EA NLU: Practical language understanding for cognitive modeling. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 117-122). Sanibel Island, FL: AAAI Press.
31. Traum, D.R., & Allen, J.F. (1994) Discourse obligations in dialogue processing. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting on Computational Linguistics (pp. 1-8). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI: 10.3115/981732.981733
32. Wielemaker, J., Schrijvers, T., Triska, M., & Lager, T. (2012). SWI-Prolog. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 12, 67-96. DOI: 10.1017/s1471068411000494