Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

On the interaction between plan recognition and intelligent interfaces

  • 101 Accesses

  • 19 Citations

Abstract

Plan recognition is an active research area in automatic reasoning, as well as a promising approach to engineering interfaces that can exploit models of user's plans and goals. Much research in the field has focused on the development of plan recognition algorithms to support particular user/system interactions, such as found in naturally occurring dialogues. However, two questions have typically remained unexamined: 1) exactly what kind of interface tasks can knowledge of a user's plans be used to support across communication modalities, and 2) how can such tasks in turn constrain development of plan recognition algorithms? In this paper we present a concrete exploration of these issues. In particular, we provide an assessment of plan recognition, with respect to the use of plan recognition in enhancing user interfaces. We clarify how use of a user model containing plans makes interfaces more intelligent and interactive (by providing an intelligent assistant that supports such tasks as advice generation, task completion, context-sensitive responses, error detection and recovery). We then show how interface tasks in turn provide constraints that must be satisfied in order for any plan recognizer to construct and represent a plan in ways that efficiently support these tasks. Finally, we survey how interfaces are fundamentally limited by current plan recognition approaches, and use these limitations to identify and motivate current research. Our research is developed in the context of CHECS, a plan-based design interface.

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

References

  1. Allen, J. F.: 1983, ‘Recognizing Intentions from Natural Language Utterances’. In: M. Brady and B. Berwick (eds.):Computational Models of Discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  2. Appelt, D. E. and M. E. Pollack: 1992, ‘Weighted Abduction for Plan Ascription’.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 2(1/2), 1–25 (this issue).

  3. Ayuso, D. M.: 1989, ‘Discourse Entities in Janus’. 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, pp. 243–250.

  4. Beltramini, L. and R. L. Motard: 1988, ‘KNOD — A Knowledge Based Approach for Process Design’.Computers in Chemical Engineering 12(9/10), 939–958.

  5. Brachman, R. J. and J. G. Schmolze: 1985, ‘An Overview of the KL-ONE Knowledge Representation System’.Cognitive Science 9, 171–216.

  6. Burger, J.: 1989, ‘User Models for Intelligent Interfaces’. IJCAI Workshop on Intelligent Interfaces, Detroit, MI.

  7. Calistri-Yeh, R.: 1991, ‘Utilizing User Models to Handle Ambiguity and Misconceptions in Robust Plan Communication’.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1(4), 289–322.

  8. Carberry, M. S.: 1985, ‘Pragmatic Modeling in Information System Interfaces’. PhD thesis, University of Delaware.

  9. Carberry, S.: 1986, ‘User Models: The Problem of Disparity’, 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Bonn, Germany, pp. 29–34.

  10. Carberry, S.: 1988, ‘Modeling the User's Plans and Goals’.Computational Linguistics 14(3), 23–37.

  11. Carberry, S.: 1990, ‘Incorporating Default Inferences into Plan Recognition. Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Boston, Ma., pp. 471–478.

  12. Carver, N. F., V. R. Lesser, and D. L. McCue: 1984, ‘Focusing in Plan Recognition’. Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Austin, TX.

  13. Chin, D.: 1988, ‘Exploiting User Expertise in Answer Expression’. Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, St. Paul, Mn., pp. 756–760.

  14. Cohen, P., C. Perrault, and J. Allen: 1982, ‘Beyond Question Answering’. In: W. Lehnert and M. Ringle (eds.):Strategies for Natural Language Processing, Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc.

  15. Cohen, P. R. and H. J. Levesque: 1990, ‘Persistence, Intention, and Commitment’. In: P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack (eds.):Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press, pp. 33–70.

  16. Cohen, R., F. Song, B. Spencer, and P. van Beek: 1991, ‘Exploiting Temporal and Novel Information from the User in Plan Recognition’.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1(2), 125–148.

  17. de Kleer, J.: 1986, ‘An Assumption-Based Truth Maintenance System’.Artificial Intelligence 28, 127–162.

  18. Eller, R. and S. Carberry: 1992, ‘A Meta-Rule Approach To Flexible Plan Recognition in Dialogue’.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 2(1/2), 27–53 (this issue).

  19. Feiner, S. and K. McKeown: 1990, ‘Coordinating Text and Graphics in Explanation Generation’. Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Boston, Ma., pp. 442–449.

  20. Fischer, G. and C. Rathke: 1988, ‘Knowledge-Based Spreadsheets’. Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, St. Paul, Mn., pp. 802–807.

  21. Fischer, G. and A. Morch: 1988, ‘CRACK: A Critiquing Approach to Cooperative Kitchen Design’. International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Montreal, Canada.

  22. Genesereth, M. R.: 1979, ‘The Role of Plans in Automated Consultation’. IJCAI-79, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 311–313.

  23. Goldman, R. and E. Charniak: 1988, ‘A Probabilistic ATMS for Plan Recognition’. AAAI-88 Workshop on Plan Recognition, St. Paul, Mn.

  24. Goodman, B. A.: 1986, ‘Reference Identification and Reference Identification Failures’.Computational Linguistics 12(4), 273–305.

  25. Goodman, B. A. and D. J. Litman: 1989, ‘Design Interfaces and Plan Recognition’. Report No. 7103, BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation, Cambridge, Ma.

  26. Goodman, B. A. and D. J. Litman: 1990, ‘Plan Recognition for Intelligent Interfaces’. IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications, Santa Barbara, Ca.

  27. Grosz, B. J.: 1977, ‘The Representation and Use of Focus in Dialogue Understanding’. Technical Note 151 (Ph.D. thesis), SRI International, Palo Alto, CA.

  28. Grosz, B. J. and C. L. Sidner: 1990, ‘Plans in Discourse’. In: P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack (eds.):Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.

  29. Huff, K. and V. Lesser: 1988, ‘A Plan-Based Intelligent Assistant That Supports the Software Development Process’. Third Symposium on Software Development Environments, Boston, Ma.

  30. Kautz, H. A.: 1987, ‘A Formal Theory of Plan Recognition’. PhD thesis, University of Rochester, Rochester, N.Y.

  31. Kobsa, A. and W. Wahlster (eds.): 1989,User Models in Dialog Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.

  32. Kobsa, A., J. Allgayer, C. Reddig, N. Reithinger, D. Schmauks, K. Harbusch, and W. Wahlster: 1986, ‘Combining Deictic Gestures and Natural Language for Referent Identification’. Eleventh International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Bonn, Germany, pp. 356–361.

  33. Konolige, K. and M. E. Pollack: 1989, ‘Ascribing Plans to Agents’. Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, Mi., pp. 924–930.

  34. Lemke, A. C. and G. Fischer: 1990, ‘A Cooperative Problem Solving System for Interface Design’. Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Boston, Ma., pp. 479–484.

  35. Litman, D. J. and J. F. Allen: 1987, ‘A Plan Recognition Model for Subdialogues in Conversations’.Cognitive Science 11, 163–200.

  36. Litman, D. J. and B. A. Goodman: 1989, ‘A Knowledge-Based Interface for Process Design’. Third International Conference on Expert Systems and the Leading Edge in Production and Operations Management, Hilton Head Island, SC.

  37. Mark, W.: 1980, ‘Rule-Based Inference in Large Knowledge Bases’. First Annual National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Ca., pp. 190–194.

  38. McCarthy, J.: 1980, ‘Circumscription — A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning’.Artificial Intelligence 13, 27–39.

  39. McCabe, W. L., J. C. Smith, and P. Harriott: 1967,Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

  40. Myers, D. R., J. F. Davis, and D. J. Herman: 1988, ‘A Task-Oriented Approach to Knowledge-Based Systems for Process Engineering Design’.Computers in Chemical Engineering 12(9/10), 959–971.

  41. National Research Council: 1988,Frontiers in Chemical Engineering: Research Needs and Opportunities. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

  42. 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. 161–186.

  43. Pollack, M. E.: 1986, ‘Inferring Domain Plans in Question-Answering’. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.

  44. Raskutti, B. and I. Zukerman: 1991, ‘Generation and Selection of Likely Interpretations during Plan Recognition in Task-Oriented Consultation Systems’.User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction 1(4), 323–353.

  45. Sacerdoti, E. D.: 1974, ‘Planning in a Hierarchy of Abstraction Spaces’.Artificial Intelligence 5, 115–135.

  46. Schank, R. C. and C. J. Rieger: 1974, ‘Inferences and the Computer Understanding of Natural Language’.Artificial Intelligence 5, 333–412.

  47. Schmidt, C. F., N. S. Sridharan, and J. L. Goodson: 1978, ‘The Plan Recognition Problem: An Intersection of Psychology and Artificial Intelligence’.Artificial Intelligence 11, 45–83.

  48. Sider, J. and J. Burger: 1992, ‘Discourse Understanding in Expert System Interfaces’.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 2(1/2), 155–179 (this issue).

  49. Sidner, C. L.: 1985, ‘Plan Parsing for Intended Response Recognition in Discourse’.Computational Intelligence 1(1), 1–10.

  50. Tenenberg, J.: 1987, ‘Preserving Consistency across Abstraction Mappings’, IJCAI-87, Milan, Italy, pp. 1011–1014.

  51. Tong, C: 1987, ‘AI in Engineering Design’.Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 2(3), 130–132.

  52. Wheelden, B.: 1988, Unpublished document. ‘Computer Resources International”. Denmark.

  53. Wilensky, R.: 1983,Planning and Understanding. Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

  54. Wilensky, R., D. N. Chin, M. Luria, J. Martin, J. Mayfield, and D. Wu: 1988, ‘The Berkeley UNIX Consultant Project’.Computational Linguistics 14(4), 35–84.

Download references

Author information

Additional information

Dr. Bradley A. Goodman is a Group Leader for AI Systems in the Computing Research and Technology Department at The MITRE Corporation. Dr. Goodman received his B.S. degree in Mathematics from Carnegie-Mellon University and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Computer Science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Goodman was a Senior Scientist in the Speech and Natural Language Department at Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. from 1980 tot 1990. He has worked in several areas of artificial intelligence, including natural language processing, intelligent tutoring systems, and intelligent interfaces. A thrust in all of his research is the use of discourse processing to further robust communication.

Dr. Diane J. Litman is Assistant Professor of Computer Science at Columbia University. Dr. Litman received her A.B. degree in Mathematics and in Computer Science from the College of William and Mary and her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Computer Science from the University of Rochester. From 1985–1990, Dr. Litman was a Member of Technical Staff, Artificial Intelligence Principles Research Department, AT&T Bell Laboratories. Dr. Litman has worked in several areas of artificial intelligence, including spoken and written discourse processing, plan recognition, and knowledge representation. Her contribution is based on work on applying plan recognition conducted while at AT&T Bell Laboratories, as well as experiences gained from her Ph.D. work in plan-based discourse understanding.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goodman, B.A., Litman, D.J. On the interaction between plan recognition and intelligent interfaces. User Model User-Adap Inter 2, 83–115 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01101860

Download citation

Key words

  • plan recognition
  • intelligent interfaces
  • user models
  • multimodal communication
  • computer-aided design