![Page 1: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
(How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?
Joost Broekens, Doug DeGroot
LIACS, Leiden University
![Page 2: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Why formalize appraisal structure at high level?
• Appraisal theory development.– Comparison, refinement, convergence
• Architectural basis for computational models– Development and debugging.
![Page 3: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Emotions in Agents
• What is an emotion?– Heuristic relating events to goals, needs, desires, beliefs of an
agent (cognitive definition).– Communication medium.– Related to homeostasis and hormonal state
• Why use an emotion in agents and robots?– heuristic aspect (efficient evaluation), communicative aspect.
• Which agents might need emotions?– Games, HCI, HRI, Virtual-Reality, Decision-making and planning.
• Computational models of emotion, in general, are based on Cognitive Appraisal Theory.
![Page 4: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Structural Theories (what), Process Theories (how)
• Structural Theory: structural relation between:– Environment of agent (perception)– Appraisal processes that interpret the environment in terms of values on
appraisal dimensions (appraisal)– Mediating processes that relate appraisal dimension values to emotions
(mediation)– Processes are black-boxes.– Declarative semantics
• Process Theory:– Detailed cognitive operations and mechanisms involved in processes
and their interaction as described by structural theory of appraisal.– Procedural (cognitive) semantics
![Page 5: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Computational models of Emotions
• Structural Theory + assumptions from AI = computational model (Gratch and Marsella, 2004).
• This poses a problem (Gratch and Marsella, 2004)– Structural Appraisal Theory: abstract.
– Computational model: algorithmic, detailed.
• What if the model does something unexpected?
Structural Theory
Computational Model
AI AssumptionsGap
![Page 6: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
What’s wrong?
• The Computational Model or the Theory (or the observer)?
Structural Theory
Computational Model
Situation
AI Assumptions
?
GapFormal
DescriptionComputational
Model
Situation
Assume less
:-)
Structural Theory
Smaller Gap
![Page 7: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Problem: How to Debug Your Computational Model?
• Debugging is a problem:– Large gap between theory and computational
model.– Highly complex agent designs complicate
debugging.– Understanding emotions is not something
computer scientist are trained, in contrast it’s the appraisal theorist’s job.
![Page 8: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Benefits of Such Formalisms
• Appraisal Theory– Comparison, Integration, Convergence (Wherle and Scherer, 2001)
– Precise and structured theory revision
– Process of Formalization helps theory development and refinement.
– Formal annotation of experimental results.
• Computational models– Formal architecture of appraisal.
– Evaluation of computational model in relation to the theory
– Structured storage of annotated experimental results (human/agent)• Compare computational models.
• Feedback to theory and human-subject based experimental results
![Page 9: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Requirements for a Formalism for the Structure of Appraisal
• How many, which processes exist (perception, appraisal, mediation)
• When and how are these activated (threshold, continuous?)
• How much time needed to evaluate?
• What kind of information needed for these processes?
• How many and which appraisal dimensions, emotional response components?
• How do appraisal dimension values relate to emotional response components?
• See also (Reisenzein, 2001).
![Page 10: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Overview of the Formalism (1/4): Perception
• W = observable objects and events in the environment of the agent
• P = the set of all perception processes available to the agent. pi:WnVnInOn
i. Is a perception process translating the world into mental objects (O) in the context of a current emotion (I) and appraisal state (V).
• O = set of all mental objects currently perceived by the agent with
P A MExternal
World (W)Appraisal
Dimension Values (V)
Emotion Component Intensities(I)
Mental Objects
(O)
![Page 11: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Overview of the Formalism (2/4): Appraisal
• A = the set of appraisal processes. ai:OnInVin , ai is an appraisal
process, mapping mental objects (O) to possible appraisal dimension values (V) in the context of the current emotion (I).
• D = set of appraisal dimensions defined by the theory.
• V = set of current appraisal dimension values VOnD[-1,1]
P A MExternal
World (W)Appraisal
Dimension Values (V)
Emotion Component Intensities(I)
Mental Objects
(O)
![Page 12: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Overview of the Formalism (3/4): Mediation
• E = set of possible emotional response components
• I = set of emotional response component intensities I=IE[0,1]
• M = set of mediating processes. mj:VnIj is a mediating process relating appraisal dimension values (V) to emotional component intensities (I)
P A MExternal
World (W)Appraisal
Dimension Values (V)
Emotion Component Intensities(I)
Mental Objects
(O)
![Page 13: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Overview of the Formalism (4/4): Process dependencies
• PP = set of all processes (P, A and M)
• LT= set of process dependency types.
• G = set of guards
• L = set of process dependencies. L = PPxPPxGxLT
• (x)(y) processing in qx is influenced iff ((py,qx,g,n)L g=true p,qPP gG nN)If a dependency exists between a process p and q and the guard g of that link is true, processing in q is influenced in a way denoted by the type n
P A MExternal
World (W)Appraisal
Dimension Values (V)
Emotion Component Intensities(I)
Mental Objects
(O)
![Page 14: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Formalization of structure
• Appraisal theory development.
• Architectural basis for computational models
![Page 15: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Application 1: Integration of two Appraisal Theories.
• Integration based on:– Scherer’s Stimulus Evaluation Checks (SEC) (Scherer, 2001)
– Smith and Kirby’s Appraisal Detector Model (ADM) (Smith and Kirby, 2000)
• SEC: multiple appraisal processes (stimulus checks)– Appraisal Processes activate in four* consecutive steps: Relevance
detection, Implication assessment, Coping potential, Norm/self compatibility.
– Processes exist at three perception levels: sensory-motor, schematic, conceptual.
– Current result of appraisal processes stored in appraisal registers.
* Here we only use the first three.
![Page 16: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Application 1: Integration
• ADM: – Appraisal detectors integrate appraisal information coming from
different perception levels (levels equivalent to those defined in SEC, i.e., sensory-motor, schematic, conceptual)
– Appraisal detectors produce emotional response.
– Feedback from emotional response to processing, specifically conceptual (reasoning) and schematic (associative learning) levels.
• Integration basics: common architectural concepts– Separation of appraisal in three levels of information processing.
– Appraisal registers/detectors
![Page 17: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Application 1:Integration
Suddenness Familiarity Predictability
Stimulusperception
Intrinsic pleasantness
Schematic
Conceptual
Goal/Needrelevance
Causalattribution
Agency
Intentional attribution
Outcomeprobability
Adjustment
Expectationdiscrepancy
Goal/Needconduciveness
Urgency
PowerControl
Implicationdetector
Relevancedetector
Novelty
Coping pot.detector
![Page 18: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Application 1:Integration
Suddenness Familiarity Predictability
Stimulusperception
Intrinsic pleasantness
Schematic
Conceptual
Goal/Needrelevance
Causalattribution
Agency
Intentional attribution
Outcomeprobability
Adjustment
Expectationdiscrepancy
Goal/Needconduciveness
Urgency
PowerControl
Implicationdetector
Relevancedetector
Novelty
Coping pot.detector
![Page 19: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Application 1:Integration
Suddenness Familiarity Predictability
Stimulusperception
Intrinsic pleasantness
Schematic
Conceptual
Goal/Needrelevance
Causalattribution
Agency
Intentional attribution
Outcomeprobability
Adjustment
Expectationdiscrepancy
Goal/Needconduciveness
Urgency
PowerControl
Implicationdetector
Relevancedetector
Novelty
Coping pot.detector
![Page 20: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Application 1:Integration
Suddenness Familiarity Predictability
Stimulusperception
Intrinsic pleasantness
Schematic
Conceptual
Goal/Needrelevance
Causalattribution
Agency
Intentional attribution
Outcomeprobability
Adjustment
Expectationdiscrepancy
Goal/Needconduciveness
Urgency
PowerControl
Implicationdetector
Relevancedetector
Novelty
Coping pot.detector
![Page 21: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Application 1:Integration
Suddenness Familiarity Predictability
Stimulusperception
Intrinsic pleasantness
Schematic
Conceptual
Goal/Needrelevance
Causalattribution
Agency
Intentional attribution
Outcomeprobability
Adjustment
Expectationdiscrepancy
Goal/Needconduciveness
Urgency
PowerControl
Implicationdetector
Relevancedetector
Novelty
Coping pot.detector
![Page 22: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Application 1:Integration
Suddenness Familiarity Predictability
Stimulusperception
Intrinsic pleasantness
Schematic
Conceptual
Goal/Needrelevance
Causalattribution
Agency
Intentional attribution
Outcomeprobability
Adjustment
Expectationdiscrepancy
Goal/Needconduciveness
Urgency
PowerControl
Implicationdetector
Relevancedetector
Novelty
Coping pot.detector
![Page 23: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Application 2: Formal Description of a Computational Model
• Formal description:– Based on simplified version of integrated model (SSK)
– Used to define the architecture of appraisal (i.e., appraisal steps, appraisal detectors, levels of perception, appraisal dimensions)
– Used to evaluate behavior of resulting computational model of emotions.
• Test environment: PacMan– Appraisal of events in PacMan’s environment is simulated.
– Architecture and appraisal dimensions used based on simplified SSK model
![Page 24: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Suddenness Familiarity
Stimulusperception
Intrinsic pleasantness
Schematic
Goal/Needrelevance
Goal/Needconduciveness
Urgency
PowerControl
Implicationdetector
Relevancedetector
Novelty
Coping pot.detector
Application 2: Comp. Model
![Page 25: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Formal description helped to verify model’s behavior.
• No activation of relevance detection…– Due to bipolar variable: conductiveness.– Summing negatively conductive and positively
conductive events results in no conductivity activation not plausible.
• Separate conductiveness in pos and neg.– Relevance detection active and activation of
implication checks at right moments.
![Page 26: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Some Conclusions
• Formal description facilitated development of computational model.– Clear definition of architecture of appraisal processes
• Formalism facilitated integration of theories.• Open:
– How to formally encode experiments and experimental results, comparing experimental results, etc.
– What is the relation between BDI-based formalism and Meta-level formalisms.
![Page 27: (How) Can Appraisal Theory be Formalized at a Meta-level?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062800/568142db550346895daf3516/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Questions?
Perception appraisal and mediating processes:P={ stimulus_perception, schematic}A={ suddenness, familiarity, novelty, intrinsic_pleasantness,
relevance, conductiveness, urgency, control, power}M={ relevance_detector, implication_detector, coping_potential_detector}
Mental object types, mental objects, appraisal dimensions and emotion components:OT={ belief}PO={ (see_ghost, belief),
(lost_ghost, belief),(eaten_by_ghost, belief),(see_edible_ghost, belief),(lost_edible_ghost, belief),(eaten_ghost, belief),(see_power, belief),(eaten_power, belief),(see_dot, belief),(eaten_dot, belief),(see_fruit, belief),(lost_fruit, belief), (eaten_fruit, belief)}
D={ novelty_dim, intrinsic_pleasantness_dim, conductiveness_dim,urgency_dim, control_dim, power_dim}
E={}
Link types, guards, data constraints and dependencies:LT={ activation}G={ true, guard1, guard2, guard3} with:guard1=((x,y,z) x,y,zV x=(o,d,i) y=(o,d',j) z=(o,d'',k) (i+j+k)/3>.15 d=novelty_dim d'=intrinsic_dim d''=relevance_dim)guard2=((x,y) x,yV x=(o,d,i) y=(o,d',j) (i+j)/2>.25 d=conductiveness_dim d'=urgency_dim)guard3=((x,y) x,yV x=(d,i) y=(d',j) i*j>0 d=control_dim d'=power_dim)
H={ c1, c2} with:c1= ((x)xV x=(y,d,i,t) i>0) if ((y)yO y=(c,j,t') j>0 t=t'), andc2= ((z)zI z=(e,i',t'') i'>0) if((x')x'V x'=(y',d,j',t''') j'>0 t''=t''')}.
L={ (stimulus_perception, suddenness, true, activation),(stimulus_perception, intrinsic_pleasantness, true, activation),(stimulus_perception, relevance, true, activation),(stimulus_perception, conductiveness, true, activation),(stimulus_perception, urgency, true, activation),(stimulus_perception, power, true, activation),(schematic, familiarity, true, activation),(schematic, relevance, true, activation),(schematic, conductiveness, true, activation),(schematic, urgency, true, activation),(schematic, control, true, activation),(suddenness, novelty, true, activation),(familiarity, novelty, true, activation),(novelty, relevance__detector, true, activation),(intrinsic_pleasantness, relevance_detector, true, activation),(relevance, relevance_detector, true, activation),(relevance_detector, conductiveness, guard1, activation),(relevance_detector, urgency, guard1, activation),(conductiveness, implication_detector, true, activation),(urgency, implication_detector, true, activation),(implication_detector, control, guard2, activation),(implication_detector, power, guard2, activation),(control, coping_potential_detector, guard3, activation),(power, coping_potential_detector, guard3, activation)}
Referred literature:Reisenzein, Rainer. Appraisal Processes Conceptualized from a Schema-Theoretic Perspective: Contributions to a Process Analysis of Emotions. 2001.
Smith, Craig A., Kirby, Leslie D. Consequences require antecedents: Toward a process model of emotion elicitation. 2000.
Wherle, Thomas and Scherer, Klaus R. Towards Computational Modeling of Appraisal Theories. 2001.
Scherer, Klaus R. Appraisal Considered as a Process of Multilevel Sequential Checking. 2001.
Gratch, Jonathan and Marsella, Stacy. A domain independent framework for modeling emotion. 2004 .
Broekens and DeGroot,. Formal Models of Emotion: Theory, Specification and Computational Model. 2004