sidner’s artificial negotiation language
DESCRIPTION
Sidner’s artificial negotiation language. Sidner: an artificial discourse language for collaborative negotiation. Formal account of negotiative dialogue negotiation for Sidner ... Has been applied to a dialogue from the AMEX corpus. Sider: basic concepts. state of communication - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Sidner’s artificial negotiation language
![Page 2: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Sidner: an artificial discourse language for collaborative
negotiation
• Formal account of negotiative dialogue
• negotiation for Sidner– ...
• Has been applied to a dialogue from the AMEX corpus
![Page 3: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Sider: basic concepts• state of communication
– beliefs (individual)– intentions– mutual beliefs– stack of open beliefs (OpenStack)– stack of rejected beliefs (RejectedStack)
• messages– agents (a,b) transmit messages with
propositional contents (p)– semantics of messages
• given in terms of postconditions on the state of communication
![Page 4: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
messages• primitive message types
– ProposeForAccept PFA(a,p,b)• a expresses p to b, intending b to accept p• When acknowledged, p is pushed on OpenStack
– Reject RJ(a,p,b)• a does not believe p• p is popped from OpenStack and pushed on
RejectedStack
– Accept AP(a,p,b)• a and b now hold p as a mutual belief• p is popped from OpenStack
– RetractProposal RP(a,b,p)• a retracts his proposal p
![Page 5: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
other messages• Derived messages
– Counter: CO(a,p,b,q) • a counters b’s proposal of p with q
– AcceptOtherProp: AOP(a,b,p,q)• a accepts b’s proposal of q and rejects his own
proposal p
– ProposeReplace: PR(a,b,p,q)• a proposes p and rejects b’s proposal of q
– ProposeAct: PA(a,b,d,c)• a proposes action d in context c
• Acknowledgement messages– AckReceipt, AckReject, AckRejectedProp
![Page 6: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Sample definition
• ProposeForAccept: PFA(a,p,b)– BEL(a,p)– INT(a,Achieve(a, BEL(b,p)))– BEL(a,Communicated(a,b,p))
• AckReceipt: AR(a,p,b)– MB(a,b,BEL(b,p))– MB(a,b,INT(a,Achieve(a,BEL(b,p)))– MB(a,b,Communicated(a,b,p))– p is pushed on OpenStack
![Page 7: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Analysis of questions
• Question = proposal that agent should perform an action
• Example– “Did John come?”– PFA(a,Should-Do(b,Tellif(b, ‘(john did come)))
• In what sense are questions proposals?
![Page 8: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
AMEX dialogue0 BC My name is B C and I would like to plan a trip1 TA and the date you need to leave? ...19 TA there is one on United that leaves Oakland at eleven thirty
p.m. and arrives Chicago five twenty five a.m.20 BC so that's a two hour hold there21 TA yes22 BC waiting for that flight ok any others?23 TA uh not from Oakland. departing from San Francisco it's about
the same actually American has an eleven forty one flight from San Francisco that arrives Chicago five fifty four (and
24 BC that's ) and hour and a half. so that's that's a a wash25 TA yeah or wait just one moment. or United has a twelve oh one
a.m. departure that arrives at Chicago five fifty two a.m.26 BC oh that sounds good
![Page 9: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Sidner: application to travel agency dialogue
• Sidner points out that– there are a number of alternative
proposals on offer throughout this section
– there is more going on than just questions and answers
• “Hi, my name is BC” is analysed as a proposal– Why is this counterintuitive?
![Page 10: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Counterproposals in the AMEX dialogue
• Example repeated:19 TA there is one on United that leaves Oakland at eleven
thirty p.m. and arrives Chicago five twenty five a.m.23 TA uh not from Oakland. departing from San Francisco it's
about the same actually American has an eleven forty one flight from San Francisco that arrives Chicago five fifty four (and
25 TA yeah or wait just one moment. or United has a twelve oh one a.m. departure that arrives at Chicago five fifty two a.m.
• Analysis:– 19 is analysed as ProposeForAccept– 23 and 25 analysed as Counter
• Why are they not all analysed as proposals?
![Page 11: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
over to Stina...
![Page 12: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Discussion
![Page 13: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Levels in communication
• Allwood, Clark: levels of understanding and acceptance – 1. A attends to B’s utterance– 2. A perceives B’s utterance– 3. A understands B’s utterance (grounding)– 4. A accepts or rejects (the content of) B’s utterance
(uptake)
• In GoDiS– grounding results in modifying SHARED.LU– uptake results in modifying SHARED.QUD and
SHARED.BEL
![Page 14: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
GoDiS uses an optimistic approach to utterance uptake
• DPs assume their utterances and moves are accepted (and integrated into SHARED)– If A asks a question with content Q, A will put Q
topmost on SHARED.QUD
• If addressee indicates rejection, backtrack– using the PRIVATE.TMP field
• No need to indicate acceptance explicitly; it is assumed
• The alternative is a pessimistic approach– If A asks a question with content Q, A will wait for an
acceptance (implicit or explicit) before putting Q on top of QUD
![Page 15: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
the Information State approach again
• Reformulating postconditions as IS update rules– requires specifying preconditions and
effects of moves/messages– requires specifying exactly when each
update is performed
• This leads to a new view of Sidner’s account
![Page 16: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Mixing of optimistic and pessimistic strategies
• We saw that Sidner’s account is asymmetric regarding when different messages are assumed to be taken up– ProposeForAccept requires acknowledgement before
OpenStack is affected (“pessimism”)– But Reject, RP, AP need not be acknowledged before
affecting OpenStack (“optimism”)
• Or, to put it differently– Sidner assumes pessimistic approach to grounding
and uptake of ProposeForAccept– but optimistic approach for Reject, Accept,
RetractProposal
![Page 17: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Uptake as negotiation
• the account of proposals etc. amounts to, in part, an account of utterance uptake, which all utterances are subject to– questions are seen as proposals– “My name is B C” is seen as a proposal
• It follows that Sidner views all dialogue as negotiation
• This is negotiation only in the sense that the uptake of any utterance can be negotiated
![Page 18: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
A different type of negotiation
• But this is a different kind of negotiation from what’s going on in the AMEX dialogue when different flights are proposed and compared
• We make a distinction between– negotiation of uptake, and – negotiation of alternatives
![Page 19: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Negotiation of alternatives
• What distinguishes negotiative dialogue (in our sense) from other kinds of dialogue?
• suggested characterisation of negotiation: – DPs discuss several alternative solutions to some
problem before choosing one of them
• Negotiation does not imply conflicting goals – perhaps not 100% correspondence to everyday use
of the word “negotiation”, but useful to keep collaborativity as a separate dimension from negotiation
– this is also common practice in mathematical game theory and political theory
![Page 20: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
What are proposals?
• questions, assertions and answers are not normally proposals
• proposals are dialogue moves on the same level as questions, assertions, instructions etc.
• as with all other moves, DPs can have an optimistic (or pessimistic) approach to grounding and uptake of proposal-moves
![Page 21: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Why does Sidner analyse successive proposals as
counterpropsals?
• If they weren’t, there would be nothing indicating that they are related to each other (and 19)– “Wear something warm” is not a
counterproposal to “Take the 11:30 American flight”
– but “Take the 11:42 United flight” is; these to proposals are related
![Page 22: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
A problem with counterproposals
• related proposals are analysed as counterproposals, i.e. as conflicting with previous proposals – but often alternative proposals do not
conflict with previous proposals (e.g. buying a CD)
– e.g. a travel agent is usually quite indifferent to which proposal is accepted
– there’s a difference between “laying out options” and actually arguing for one of the options
![Page 23: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Negotiable and non-negotiable issues
• Why does it seem strange to view e.g. “My name is B C” as negotiation in our sense?
• Some issues are negotiable, and some are not!– depends on activity– issues may become negotiable, e.g. if a
previous proposal is challenged (“No it’s not, I’ve met you before and your name is A D!”)
![Page 24: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Conclusion
• We have analysed Sidner’s account of negotiative dialogue using the information state approach
• We need to – make a distinction between negotiation of
uptake, and negotiation of alternatives – provide a way of explaining how proposals
can be related without being in conflict– make a distinction between negotiable and
non-negotiable issues
![Page 25: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Current work: an alternative account of negotiation
• Negotiation– the process of providing a solution (an answer)
to an – Issue Under Negotiation (IUN), represented as a
question
• Proposals – add answers to a set of possible answers
related to an IUN
• Uptake– is handled separately from negotiation, but – when uptake fails, negotiation may be needed
![Page 26: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
![Page 27: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
![Page 28: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
![Page 29: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
![Page 30: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
counterproposals
• Counter (CO a p b q):– without rejecting p, a offers q to b
• analysed as two proposals– (PFA a b p)– (PFA a(Supports q (Not p))
• A counterproposal requires that the new proposal conflicts with a previous proposal
• In this way, Sidner can distinguish unrelated proposals from related proposals
![Page 31: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Negotiation vs. acceptance
• Allwood, Clark: levels of understanding and acceptance – 1. A attends to B’s utterance– 2. A percieves B’s utterance– 3. A understands B’s utterance (grounding)– 4. A accepts or rejects B’s utterance
• Sidner and others sees negotiative dialogue as proposals and acceptance/rejections
• this means that all dialogue is negotiative
– all assertions (and questions, instructions etc.) are proposals
![Page 32: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Negotiation vs. acceptance
• But some dialogues are negotiative in another sense,
–by explicitly containing discussions about different solutions to a problem, and finally deciding on one
–Negotiation in this sense is not Clark’s level 4
• proposals are dialogue moves on the same level as questions, assertions, instructions etc.
• There’s a difference between – accepting a proposal-move, and thereby adding a possible solution, and
– accepting a proposed alternative as the solution
![Page 33: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Two senses of “negotiation”
• Negotiation in Sidner’s sense– A: I’m going to Paris[propose P]– B(1): OK, let’s see... [accept P]– B(2): Sorry, we only handle trips within Sweden
[reject P]
• Negotiation in our sense– U: flights to Paris on september 13 please – S: there is one flight at 07:45 and one at 12:00
[propose two flights]– U: what airline is the 12:00 one [ask]– S: the 12:00 flight is an SAS flight [answer]– U: I’ll take the 12:00 flight please [accept flight]
![Page 34: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Remedies
• distinguish utterance acceptance from “real” negotiation
• an account of counterproposals which can account for the fact that– a new proposal may concern the
same issue as a previous proposal,– without necessarily being a
counterproposal
![Page 35: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Negotiativity
• Negotiation is a type of problem-solving • suggested characterisation of negotiation:
– DPs discuss several alternative solutions to some problem before choosing one of them
• Negotiation does not imply conflicting goals – perhaps not 100% correspondence to everyday use
of the word “negotiation”, but useful to keep collaborativity as a separate dimension from negotiation
– this is also common practice in mathematical game theory and political theory
![Page 36: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Negotiation tasks• Some factors influencing negotiation
– distribution of information between DPs – distribution of responsibility: whether DPs must commit jointly
(e.g. Coconut) or one DP can make the comittment (e.g. flight booking)
• We’re initially trying to model negotiation in flight booking– sample dialogue
• U: flights to paris on september 13 please• S: there is one flight at 07:45 and one at 12:00• U: what airline is the 12:00 one• S: the 12:00 flight is an SAS flight• U: I’ll take the 12:00 flight please
– Sys provides alternatives, User makes the choice– Sys knows timetable, User knows when he wants to travel etc.
![Page 37: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Degrees of negotiativity
• non-negotiative dialogue: only one alternative is discussed
• semi-negotiative dialogue: a new alternative can be introduced by altering parameters of the previous alternative, but previous alternatives are not retained
• negotiative dialogue: several alternatives can be introduced, and old alternatives are retained and can be returned to
![Page 38: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Semi-negotiative dialogue
• Does not require keeping track of several alternatives
• Answers must be revisable (to some extent)
• Example of limited semi-negotiative dialogue– Swedish SJ system (Philips): ”Do you
want an earlier or later train?”
![Page 39: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Issues Under Negotiation i (fully) negotiative dialogue• IUN is question e.g. what flight to take• In an activity, some questions are
marked as negotiable issues– other questions are assumed to be non-
negotiable, e.g. the user’s name in a travel agency setting
• Each IUN is associated with a set of proposed answers– Needs a new IS field: SHARED.IUN of type
assocset(question,set(answer))
![Page 40: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Alternatives in negotiation
• Alternatives are possible answers to an IUN• a proposal has the effect of introducing a new
alternative to the Issue Under Negotiation• An IUN is resolved when an alternative is
decided on, i.e. when an answer to it is accepted
• In some cases, the answer to IUN may consist of a set of alternatives (e.g. when buying CDs)
![Page 41: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Example
• IUN is ?x.sel_flight(x) (“which is the chosen flight”?)
• A: flight to paris, december 13– answer(dest(paris)) etc.;
• B: OK, there’s one flight leaving at 07:45 and one at 12:00– propose(f1), propose(f2),– answer(dep_time(f1,07:45)), answer(dep_time(f2,12:00))
• ....• A: I’ll take the 07:45 one
– answer(sel_flight(X), dep_time(X, 07:45)),– after contextual interpretation: answer(sel_flight(f1))
![Page 42: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
PRIVATE =
PLAN =
AGENDA = { findout(?x.sel_flight(x)) }
SHARED =
findout((?x. ccn(x))book_ticket
COM = dep_time(f1,0745),dep_time(f2,1200)dest(paris), ...
QUD = <> LM = {propose(f1), propose(f2),
answer(dep_time(f1,07:40),...}
BEL = {flight(f1), dep_time(f1,0745), ... } TMP = (same structure as SHARED)
IUN = < ?x.sel_flight(x f1, f2 } >
B: OK, there’s one flight leaving at 07:45 and one at 12:00
![Page 43: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Issues Under Negotiation: Summary
• proposed alternatives can concern the same issue, without conflicting
• not all issues are negotiable: depends on the activity
• a formal account in line with the use of Questions Under Discussion in GoDiS
![Page 44: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Future work
• implementation• exploring negotiation in other
domains• relating IUN to global QUD; are
they both needed? • dealing with conflicting goals
![Page 45: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
CD dialogue
– U: Records by the Beach Boys– S: You can buy Pet Sounds, Today, or Surf’s
Up– U: Which is the cheapest?– S: Pet Sounds and Today are both 79:-,
Surf’s Up is 149:-– U: Hmm... I’ll get Pet Sounds and Today
![Page 46: Sidner’s artificial negotiation language](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814fa5550346895dbd62b2/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)