Skip to main content
Log in

Requirements for belief models in cooperative dialogue

  • Published:
User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Models of rationality typically rely on underlying logics that allow simulated agents to entertain beliefs about one another to any depth of nesting. Such models seem to be overly complex when used for belief modelling in environments in which cooperation between agents can be assumed, i.e., most HCI contexts. We examine some existing dialogue systems and find that deeply-nested beliefs are seldom supported, and that where present they appear to be unnecessary except in some situations involving deception.

Use of nested beliefs is associated with nested reasoning (i.e., reasoning about other agents' reasoning). We argue that for cooperative dialogues, representations of individual nested beliefs of the third level (i.e., what A thinks B thinks A thinks B thinks) and beyond are in principle unnecessary unless directly available from the environment, because the corresponding nested reasoning is redundant.

Since cooperation sometimes requires that agents reason about what is mutually believed, we propose a representation in which the second and all subsequent nesting levels are merged into a single category. In situations affording individual deeply-nested beliefs, such a representation restricts agents to human-like referring and repair strategies, where an unrestricted agent might make an unrealistic and perplexing utterance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, J. F: 1983, ‘Recognizing Intentions from Natural Language Utterances’. In: Brady and Berwick (eds.): Computational Models of Discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 107–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, J. F., L. K. Schubert, G. Ferguson, P. Heeman, C. H. Hwang, T. Kato, M. Light, N. G. Martin, B. W. Miller, M. Poesio, and D. R. Traum: 1994, ‘The TRAINS Project: A Case Study in Building a Conversational Agent’. Technical Report 94–3, Computer Science Dept. University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A. H., M. Bader, E. G. Bard, E. Boyle, G. Doherty, S. Garrod, S. Isard, J. Kowtko, J. McAllister, J. Miller, C. Sotillo, H. Thompson, and R. Weinert: 1991, ‘The HCRC Map Task Corpus’. Language and Speech 34(4), 351–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelt, D. E.: 1983, ‘Planning English Referring Expressions’. Technical Report 312, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International.

  • Appelt, D. E.: 1985, Planning English Sentences. Cambridge University Press.

  • Appelt, D. E. and K. Konolige: 1988, ‘A Practical Nonmonotonic Theory for Reasoning About Speech Acts’. Technical Report 432, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International.

  • Appelt, D. E. and M. E. Pollack: 1991, ‘Weighted Abduction for Plan Ascription’. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1(1–2), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballim, A. and Y. Wilks: 1991, Artificial Believers. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson: 1987, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, second edition.

  • Carletta, J. C.: 1992, ‘Risk-Taking and Recovery inTask-Oriented Dialogue’. Ph.D. Thesis, Edinburgh University Department of Artificial Intelligence.

  • Carpenter, P. A., M. A. Just, and P. Shell: 1990, ‘What one Intelligence Test Measures: a Theoretical Account of the Processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test’. Psychological Review 97, 404–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, P. A., A. Miyake, and M. A. Just: in press, ‘Working Memory Constraints in Comprehension: Evidence from Individual Differences, Aphasia, and Aging.’. In: M. Gernsbacher (ed.): Handbook of Psycholinguisitics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  • Chapman, D.: 1987, ‘Planning For Conjunctive Goals’. Artificial Intelligence 32(3), 333–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. and C. R. Marshall: 1981, ‘Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge’. In: A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, and I. A. Sag (eds.): Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge University Press.

  • Clark, H. H. and E. Schaefer: 1989, ‘Contributing to Discourse’. Cognitive Science 13, 259–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P. and C. R. Perrault: 1979, ‘Elements of a Plan-Based Theory of Speech Acts’. Cognitive Science 3(3), 177–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donellan, K. S.: 1966, ‘Reference and Definite Descriptions’. Philosophical Review 75, 281–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, J.: 1991, ‘Understanding Others: Evidence from Naturalistic Studies of Children’. In: A. Whiten (ed.): Natural Theories of Mind: Evolution, Development and Simulation of Everyday Mindreading. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagin, R.and J. Y. Halpern: 1988, ‘Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning’. Artificial Intelligence 34, 39–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fikes, R. E. and N. J. Nilsson: 1971, ‘STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving’. Artificial Intelligence 2, 198–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P.: 1957, ‘Meaning’. Philosophical Review 66, 377–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation’. In: P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.): Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, J. Y. and Y. Moses: 1985, ‘A Guide to the Modal Logics of Knowledge and Belief: Preliminary Draft’. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1. pp. 480–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, J.: 1962, Knowledge and Belief. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton, G.: 1986, ‘The Production of Language in Dialogue: A Computational Model’. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sussex.

  • Joshi, A. K., B. Webber, and R. M. Weishedel: 1984, ‘Preventing False Inferences.’. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-84). pp. 134–138.

  • Just, M. A., P. A. Carpenter, and D. D. Hemphill: in press, ‘Constraints on Processing Capacity: Architectural or Implementational?’. In: D. Steier and T. Mitchell (eds.): Mind Matters: A Tribute to Allen Newell.

  • Kautz, H. A.: 1987, ‘A Formal Theory of Plan Recognition’. Technical Report TR-215, University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science, Rochester, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobsa, A.: 1984, ‘Three Steps in Constructing Mutual Belief Models from User Assertions’. In: ECAI84 Proceedings, pp. 423–426.

  • Kobsa, A.: 1989, ‘A Taxonomy of Beliefs and Goals for User Models in Dialog Systems’. In:A. Kobsaand W. Wahlster (eds.): User Models in Dialog Systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag,pp. 52–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobsa, A.: 1990, ‘Modeling the User's Conceptual Knowledge in BGP-MS, a User Modelling Shell System’. Computational Intelligence 6, 193–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobsa, A., D. Müller, and D. Nill: 1994, ‘KN-AHS: An Adaptive Hypertext Client of the User Modelling System BGP-MS’. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on User Modeling. Hyannis, MA.

  • Kobsa, A. and W. Pohl: 1995, ‘The User Modeling Shell System BGP-MS’. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4(2), 59–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konolige, K.: 1986, A Deduction Model of Belief. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leekam, S. R.: 1991, ‘Jokes and Lies: Children's Understanding of Intentional Falsehood’. In: A. Whiten (ed.): Natural Theories of Mind: Evolution, Development and Simulation of Everyday Mindreading. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. K.: 1969, Convention: a Philosophical Study. Harvard University Press.

  • McArthur, G. L.: 1988, ‘Reasoning About Knowledge and Belief: a Survey’. Computational Intelligence 4, 223–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, D. V.: 1982, ‘A Temporal Logic for Reasoning About Processes and Plans’. Cognitive Science 6, 101–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., E. Galanter, and K. H. Pribram: 1960, Plans and the Structure of Behavior. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R. C.: 1980, ‘Reasoning About Knowledge and Action’. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • O'Rorke, P.: 1983, ‘Reasons for Beliefs in Understanding: Applications of Non-Monotonic Dependencies to Story Processing’. In: Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 306–309.

  • Perner, J. and H. Wimmer: 1985, ‘“John Thinks that Mary Thinks that...” Attribution of Second-Order Beliefs by 5-to 10-Year-Old Children’. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 39, 437–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrault, C. R.: 1990, ‘An Application of Default Logic to Speech Act Theory’. In: P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack (eds.): Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 161–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrault, C. R. and P. R. Cohen: 1981, ‘It's for Your own Good: a Note on Inaccurate Reference’. In: A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, and I. A. Sag (eds.): Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge University Press.

  • Power, R. J. D.: 1974, ‘A Computer Model of Conversation’. Ph.D. Thesis, Edinburgh University Department of Artificial Intelligence.

  • Power, R. J. D.: 1979, ‘The Organization of Purposeful Dialogue’. Linguistics 17, 107–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichgelt, H.: 1989, ‘Logics for Reasoning About Knowledge and Belief’. The Knowledge Engineering Review 4(2), 119–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichgelt, H. and N. Shadbolt: 1989, ‘Planning as Theory Extension’. In: AISB89 Proceedings. pp. 191–201.

  • Sacerdoti, E. D.: 1975, ‘The Nonlinear Nature of Plans’. In: Advance Papers of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 206–214.

  • Sadock, J. M.: 1986, ‘Commentary on Dierdre Wilson and Dan Sperber's ‘Pragmatics and Modularity’’. In: A. M. Farley, P. T. Farley, and K.-E. McCullough (eds.): Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory at the Twenty-Second Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Godspeed Hall, 1050 East 59th St, Chicago, Illinois 60637: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 85–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R.: 1969, Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.

  • Searle, J. R.: 1975, ‘Indirect Speech Acts.’. In: P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.): Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J.: 1994a, ‘An ATMS-Based Belief Model for Dialogue Simulation’. In: S. M. Deen (ed.): CKBS-SIG Proceedings 1993. Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK, pp. 135–159.

  • Taylor, J.: 1994b, ‘A Multi-Agent Planner for Modelling Dialogue’. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex.

  • Waldinger, R.: 1977, ‘Achieving Several Goals Simultaneously’. In: E. W. Elcock and D. Michie (eds.): Machine Intelligence 8. Halstead/Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimmer, H.and J. Perner: 1983, ‘Beliefs about Beliefs: Representation and Constraining Functions of Wrong Beliefs in Young Children's Understanding of Deception’. Cognition 13, 103–128.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Taylor, J.A., Carletta, J. & Mellish, C. Requirements for belief models in cooperative dialogue. User Model User-Adap Inter 6, 23–68 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00126653

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00126653

Key words

Navigation