230 likes | 528 Views
Grounding and Repair. Joe Tepperman CS 599 – Dialogue Modeling Fall 2005. Grounding. Establishing mutual belief Collaborative More than one active participant Acknowledgement Necessary for: Dialogue flow, theorem proving, etc. User modeling Repairing dialogue & ASR errors.
E N D
Grounding and Repair Joe Tepperman CS 599 – Dialogue Modeling Fall 2005
Grounding • Establishing mutual belief • Collaborative • More than one active participant • Acknowledgement • Necessary for: • Dialogue flow, theorem proving, etc. • User modeling • Repairing dialogue & ASR errors
Clark and Schaefer’s Contribution Model (1989) • Influential, but not practical • Contributions in two parts: Presentation Phase • Contributor presents content, Partners try to understand it Acceptance Phase 2. Contributor & Partners move towards a grounding criterion: mutual belief that the contributor was understood sufficiently
Assumptions • Presentation Phase • A assumes that B has understood u if B demonstrates some minimum evidence e or stronger • Acceptance Phase • B assumes A will believe he has understood u if A registers that B has demonstrated evidence e’ Requires acceptance of acceptance?
Types of Evidence • Display: B repeats A’s presentation verbatim • Demonstration: B demonstrates what he has understood • Acknowledgement: B makes some sign that he has understood • Initiate Next Contribution: B makes a relevant contribution • Continued Attention: B shows he is satisfied with A’s presentation strongest Strongest? Oblivious? weakest
Where does the presentation end? Main Problem with the Model • How to tell the current state for each utterance: presentation or acceptance phase? A: Move the boxcar to Corning. A: And load it with oranges. B: Okay. A: Move the boxcar to Corning. B: Okay. A: And load it with oranges. B: Okay.
The Grounding Acts Model (Traum 1992) • Collapses all different types of acceptance • Single-utterance level grounding units • Allows automatic recognition of a within-utterance grounding act • No need to wait for the next phase to start before identifying completion of current one
Grounding Acts • Initiate: Begin new content • Continue: Add related content • Acknowledge: Demonstrate or claim understanding • Repair: Correct a perceived misunderstanding • Request Repair • Request Acknowledgment • Cancel: Leave unit ungrounded Includes all C&S “evidence”
State Transition Matrix I: initiator R: responder S: start F: grounded D: “dead” state 1: ack needed for grounding 2: repairI needed 3: ackI needed 4: repairR needed
Previous Example DU1 1: initiateI 1 2: continueI 1 3: acknowledgeR F DU1DU2 1: initiateI 1 2: acknowledgeR F 3: initiateI F 1 4: acknowledgeR F F A: Move the boxcar to Corning. A: And load it with oranges. B: Okay. A: Move the boxcar to Corning. B: Okay. A: And load it with oranges. B: Okay. DU: Discourse Unit
Open Problems with this Model • Binary grounded/ungrounded decision • No levels of “groundedness” • Leaves the unit size unspecified • Confusability of grounding acts • e.g. repetition = acknowledgment, repair, or request for repair? • Only well-suited for spoken language grounding
A More Complete Psychological Model • How is a particular grounding act realized? • How important is the grounding? • How useful will it be to the system? • What criteria are needed? • How well will a particular act ground its intended content? • And what is the opportunity cost of performing this act? • Is it worth it?
Levels of Analysis: Quartet, Paek & Horvitz 2000 • Channel Level: attempt to open communication channel with some behavior • Signal Level: behavior is intended as a signal • Intention Level: understanding of semantic content occurs • Conversation Level: a joint activity is proposed and responded to lowest highest *All levels require coordination between speaker and listener
Signal & Channel level Intention level Conversation level System Design • Two modules: • maintenance • intention • Conversation Control • exchanges info between the modules • determines grounding state • weighs costs and benefits • evaluates module performance & reliability
Benefits of this Design • ASR can model probabilistic dependencies among levels • Easier to pinpoint and fix problems in system understanding • Models psychological strategies for grounding on lower levels first • Flexibility in multiple domains: simply changing the intention module
Utterance Features • System • Implicit/Explicit question • Number of verified slots • Default assumptions: true? • Number, type, and recurrence of errors • User • Length (in words) • Answer to verification question? • Ordinary word order? • Confirmation/Disconfirmation markers • Number of repeated, new, and corrected slots When do you want to travel to Amsterdam? So you want to travel to Amsterdam? Date, time, destination, etc. e.g. travel today Human-labeled I want to go to Amsterdam Where I want to go is Amsterdam Yes, no, yeah, nope, etc.
Nonverbal Grounding: Nakano et. al. 2003 Speaker/Listener gP: gaze at partner gM: gaze at map gMwN: gaze at map & nod UU: utterance unit (intonational)