A Dialogue-Based Approach to Mixed-Initiative Plan Management

Abstract : This research investigates ways to augment human plan reasoning capabilities in command and control tasks, such as logistics planning, crisis management and situation assessment. The goal was to avoid making the simplifying assumptions made in traditional research in planning that prevented effective human-computer collaborative planning. Specifically, no assumptions were made relative to goals being well specified in the beginning, or that the evaluation criteria can be precisely defined in a quantitative manner. The groundwork was laid for research in mixed-initiative planning through development of TRIPS (The Rochester Interactive Planning System), a robust speech-driven mixed initiative planning system, which has been installed at Global Infotech in Washington DC for the Command Post of the Future (CPOF) jumpstart demonstration as well as at the Air Force Research Lab in Rome, New York. TRIPS runs stand-alone without Rochester researchers present. New Theoretical techniques for speeding up well-founded domain-independent planners were also developed. In addition, simulation and data mining techniques to find improvements to large-scale plans that could not be reasoned about using traditional techniques were developed and demonstrated.

[1]  David R. Traum,et al.  CONVERSATION ACTS IN TASK‐ORIENTED SPOKEN DIALOGUE , 1992, Comput. Intell..

[2]  James F. Allen,et al.  A Plan Recognition Model for Subdialogues in Conversations , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[3]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Collaborative Plans for Complex Group Action , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Manny Rayner,et al.  Hybrid language processing in the Spoken Language Translator , 1997, 1997 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

[5]  Norbert Reithinger,et al.  POPEL — A Parallel and Incremental Natural Language Generation System , 1991 .

[6]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Intentions in Communication. , 1992 .

[7]  James F. Allen,et al.  Applying Genetic Algorithms to Pronoun Resolution , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

[8]  Slava M. Katz,et al.  Estimation of probabilities from sparse data for the language model component of a speech recognizer , 1987, IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process..

[9]  Piek Vossen,et al.  EuroWordNet: a multilingual database for information retrieval , 1997 .

[10]  C. Sidner,et al.  Plans for Discourse , 1988 .

[11]  Michael Strube,et al.  Resolving Discourse Deictic Anaphora in Dialogues , 1999, EACL.

[12]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[13]  John Cocke,et al.  A Statistical Approach to Machine Translation , 1990, CL.

[14]  Alex Waibel,et al.  Readings in speech recognition , 1990 .

[15]  David R. Traum,et al.  Discourse Obligations in Dialogue Processing , 1994, ACL.

[16]  J. Austin How to do things with words , 1962 .

[17]  Michael Zock,et al.  Architectures for Natural Language Generation: Problems and Perspectives , 1993, EWNLG.

[18]  Alexander I. Rudnicky Language Modeling with Limited Domain Data , 1995 .

[19]  Jr. G. Forney,et al.  The viterbi algorithm , 1973 .

[20]  Karen E. Lochbaum,et al.  Using collaborative plans to model the intentional structure of discourse , 1995 .

[21]  J. Searle,et al.  Expression and Meaning. , 1982 .

[22]  Graeme Hirst,et al.  Collaborating on Referring Expressions , 1991, CL.

[23]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  The zero-frequency problem: Estimating the probabilities of novel events in adaptive text compression , 1991, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.