Requirements for belief models in cooperative dialogue

  • Jasper A. Taylor
  • Jean Carletta
  • Chris Mellish


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.

Key words

Belief modelling cooperative dialogue reference resolution restricted inference 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Appelt, D. E.: 1983, ‘Planning English Referring Expressions’. Technical Report 312, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International.Google Scholar
  5. Appelt, D. E.: 1985, Planning English Sentences. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Appelt, D. E. and K. Konolige: 1988, ‘A Practical Nonmonotonic Theory for Reasoning About Speech Acts’. Technical Report 432, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Ballim, A. and Y. Wilks: 1991, Artificial Believers. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson: 1987, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, second edition.Google Scholar
  10. Carletta, J. C.: 1992, ‘Risk-Taking and Recovery inTask-Oriented Dialogue’. Ph.D. Thesis, Edinburgh University Department of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Chapman, D.: 1987, ‘Planning For Conjunctive Goals’. Artificial Intelligence 32(3), 333–377.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, H. H. and E. Schaefer: 1989, ‘Contributing to Discourse’. Cognitive Science 13, 259–294.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, P. and C. R. Perrault: 1979, ‘Elements of a Plan-Based Theory of Speech Acts’. Cognitive Science 3(3), 177–212.Google Scholar
  17. Donellan, K. S.: 1966, ‘Reference and Definite Descriptions’. Philosophical Review 75, 281–304.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Fagin, R.and J. Y. Halpern: 1988, ‘Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning’. Artificial Intelligence 34, 39–76.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Grice, H. P.: 1957, ‘Meaning’. Philosophical Review 66, 377–88.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Hintikka, J.: 1962, Knowledge and Belief. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Houghton, G.: 1986, ‘The Production of Language in Dialogue: A Computational Model’. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Kobsa, A.: 1984, ‘Three Steps in Constructing Mutual Belief Models from User Assertions’. In: ECAI84 Proceedings, pp. 423–426.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Kobsa, A.: 1990, ‘Modeling the User's Conceptual Knowledge in BGP-MS, a User Modelling Shell System’. Computational Intelligence 6, 193–208.Google Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Konolige, K.: 1986, A Deduction Model of Belief. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Lewis, D. K.: 1969, Convention: a Philosophical Study. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. McArthur, G. L.: 1988, ‘Reasoning About Knowledge and Belief: a Survey’. Computational Intelligence 4, 223–243.Google Scholar
  38. McDermott, D. V.: 1982, ‘A Temporal Logic for Reasoning About Processes and Plans’. Cognitive Science 6, 101–155.Google Scholar
  39. Miller, G. A., E. Galanter, and K. H. Pribram: 1960, Plans and the Structure of Behavior. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  40. Moore, R. C.: 1980, ‘Reasoning About Knowledge and Action’. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. Power, R. J. D.: 1974, ‘A Computer Model of Conversation’. Ph.D. Thesis, Edinburgh University Department of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  46. Power, R. J. D.: 1979, ‘The Organization of Purposeful Dialogue’. Linguistics 17, 107–156.Google Scholar
  47. Reichgelt, H.: 1989, ‘Logics for Reasoning About Knowledge and Belief’. The Knowledge Engineering Review 4(2), 119–139.Google Scholar
  48. Reichgelt, H. and N. Shadbolt: 1989, ‘Planning as Theory Extension’. In: AISB89 Proceedings. pp. 191–201.Google Scholar
  49. Sacerdoti, E. D.: 1975, ‘The Nonlinear Nature of Plans’. In: Advance Papers of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 206–214.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Searle, J. R.: 1969, Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. Taylor, J.: 1994b, ‘A Multi-Agent Planner for Modelling Dialogue’. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  55. Waldinger, R.: 1977, ‘Achieving Several Goals Simultaneously’. In: E. W. Elcock and D. Michie (eds.): Machine Intelligence 8. Halstead/Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. 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

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jasper A. Taylor
    • 1
  • Jean Carletta
    • 1
  • Chris Mellish
    • 2
  1. 1.Human Communication Research CentreEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Department of Artificial IntelligenceEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations