Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Generating under Global Constraints: the Case of Scripted Dialogue

  • Published:
Research on Language and Computation

An Erratum to this article was published on 04 June 2008

Abstract

Recently, the view of Natural Language Generation (nlg) as a Constraint Satisfaction Problem (csp) has seen something of a revival. The aim of this paper is to examine the issues that arise when nlg is viewed as a csp, and to introduce a novel application of constraint-based nlg, namely the Scripted Dialogue. Scripted Dialogue shares a number of crucial features with discourse, which make it possible to control the global properties of a computer-generated dialogue in the same way as those of a generated discourse. We pay particular attention to the use of soft constraints for enforcing global properties of text and dialogue. Because there has been little research into the formal properties of soft constraints in relation to generation, we start out with a theoretical exploration. We argue that, when multiple constraints are involved, it is important to define properly what is being optimised before proposing specific algorithms, and we argue that such definitions are often lacking in csp-based nlg. We show that it can be difficult (and sometimes even impossible) to guarantee satisfaction of global constraints by following local strategies. Based on these difficulties, we propose a novel approach to the generation of discourse and dialogue which combines csp solving with revision. Scripted Dialogue is used to illustrate this approach, which is compared with alternatives such as monitoring and estimation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Appelt D.E. (1985). Planning English sentences. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • André E., Rist T., van Mulken M., Baldes S. (2000). The automated design of believable dialogues for animated presentation teams. In Cassell J., Sullivan J., Prevost S., Churchill E. (eds). Embodied conversational agents (pp. 220–255)Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Bateman J. (1997). Sentence generation and systemic grammar: An introduction. Iwanami lecture series: Language sciences. Tokyo, Iwanami Shoten Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Bistarelli S., Montanari U., Rossi F. (1997). Semiring-based constraint solving and optimization. Journal of the ACM 44(2): 201–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bistarelli S., Frühwirth T., Marte M., Rossi F. (2004). Soft constraint propagation and solving in constraint handling rules. Computational Intelligence 20(2): 287–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway, C., & Lester, J. (1997). Dynamically improving explanations: A revision-based approach to explanation generation. In Proceedings of IJCAI97 conference, Nagoya, Japan.

  • Chomsky N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague/Paris, Mouton

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox R., McKendree J., Tobin R., Lee J., Mayes T. (1999). Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse: A controlled comparison. Instructional science 27: 431–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S., Gholson, B., Ventura, M., Graesser, A., & the Tutoring Research Group (2000). Overhearing dialogues and monologues in virtual tutoring sessions: Effects on questioning and vicarious learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 11: 242–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Deemter K., Odijk J. (1997). Context modeling and the generation of spoken discourse. Speech Communication 21: 101–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D., Fargier H., Prade H. (1996). Possibility theory in constraint satisfaction problems: Handling priority, preference and uncertainty. Applied Intelligence 6: 287–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germann, U., Jahr, M., Knight, K., Marcu, D., & Yamada, K. (2001). Fast decoding and optimal decoding for machine translation. In Proceedings of the 39th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Toulouse, France, pp. 228–235.

  • Hayes J., Flower L. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist 41: 1106–1113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Hentenryck P. (1989). Constraint satisfaction in logic programming. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovy, E. (1988). Generating natural language under pragmatic constraints. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Inui K., Tokunaga T., Tanaka H. (1992). Text revision: A model and its implementation. In Dale R. et al. (eds). Aspects of automated natural language generation: Proceedings of the Sixth International Natural Language Generation Workshop. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, pp. 215–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Isard, A., Brockmann, C., & Oberlander, J. (2006). Individuality and alignment in generated dialogues. In Proceedings of INLG 2006, the International Natural Language Generation Conference, July 2006, Sydney, Australia.

  • Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993). From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, Formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibble, R. & Power, R. (2000). An integrated framework for text planning and pronominalisation. In Proceedings of The First International Natural Language Generation Conference (INLG’2000), pp. 77–84.

  • Kibble R., Power R. (2004). Optimizing referential coherence in text generation. Computational Linguistics 30(4): 401–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krenn B., Pirker H., Grice M., Baumann S., Piwek P., van Deemter K., Schröder M., Klesen M., & Gstrein E. (2002). Generation of multimodal dialogue for net environments. In Busemann S. (ed). KONVENS 2002. DFKI, Saarbrücken, Germany, pp. 91–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Langkilde-Geary, I. (2004). An exploratory application of constraint optimization in Mozart to probabilistic natural language processing. In International Workshop on Constraint Solving and Language Processing—CSLP 2004, September, Roskilde University.

  • Mann W.C. (1985). An introduction to the Nigel text generation grammar. In Benson J.D., Greaves W.S. (eds). Systemic perspectives on discourse: Selected theoretical papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop. Ablex Pub. Corp., Norwood, NJ, pp. 84–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Manurung, H., Ritchie, G., & Thompson, H. (2000). Towards a computational model of poetry generation. In G. A. Wiggins (Ed.), In Proceedings of the AISB00 Symposium on Creative & Cultural Aspects and Applications of AI & Cognitive Science, SSAISB, pp. 79–86.

  • Marciniak, T., & Strube, M. (2005). Discrete optimization as an alternative to sequential processing in nlg. In Proceedings of the 10th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG 2005), Aberdeen, UK.

  • Masthoff J. (2004). Group modeling: Selecting a sequence of television items to suit a group of viewers. User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction 14: 37–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, D. (1987). Natural-language generation. In S. Shapiro (Ed.), Encyclopedia of artificial intelligence (Vol. 1). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

  • Mellish, C., Knott, A., Oberlander, J., & O’Donnell, M. (1998). Experiments using stochastic search for text planning. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Niagara-on-the-lake, Ontario.

  • Nash J. (1950). The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18: 155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paiva D., Evans R. (2004). A framework for stylistically controlled generation. In Belz A., Evans R., Piwek P. (eds). Natural Language Generation: Third International Conference (INLG 2004), LNCS 3123. Berlin, Springer, pp. 120–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Paiva, D., & Evans, R. (2005) Empirically-based control of natural language generation. In K. Knight, H. T. Ng, & K. Oflazer (Eds.), In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2005), Ann Arbor, USA, pp. 58–65.

  • Piwek, P., & van Deemter, K. (2002). Towards Automated Generation of Scripted Dialogue: Some Time-Honoured Strategies. In J. Bos, M. Foster, & C. Matheson (Eds.), In Proceedings of EDILOG: 6th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue, Edinburgh, September 4–6, 2002, pp. 141–148.

  • Piwek, P., Krenn, B., Schröder, M., Grice, M., Baumann, S., & Pirker, H. (2002). RRL: A rich representation language for the description of agent behaviour in NECA. In Proceedings of the AAMAS workshop “Embodied conversational agents – let’s specify and evaluate them!”, Bologna, Italy, 16 July 2002.

  • Piwek, P., & van Deemter, K. (2003). Dialogue as discourse: Controlling global properties of scripted dialogue. In AAAI Spring Symposium on Natural Language Generation in Spoken and Written Dialogue, AAAI Technical Report SS-03-06. Menlo Park, California: AAAI Press, pp. 118–124.

  • Piwek, P., & van Deemter, K. (2006). Constraint-based natural language generation: A survey. Technical Report 2006/03, Computing Department, The Open University.

  • Power R. (1979). The organization of purposeful dialogues. Linguistics 17: 107–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, R. (2000). Planning texts by constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of COLING 2000, Saarbrücken, Germany, pp. 642–648.

  • Reiter, E. (1994). Has a consensus NL Generation architecture appeared, and is it psycholinguistically plausible? In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workhop on Natural Language Generation, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp. 95–105.

  • Reiter E. (2000). Pipelines and size constraints. Computational Linguistics 26: 251–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robin J., McKeown K. (1996). Empirically designing and evaluating a new revision-based model for summary generation. Artificial Intelligence 85(1–2): 135–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld A., Hummel R.A., Zucker S.W. (1976). Scene labeling by relaxation operations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 6: 420–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein A. (2000). Economics and Language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff E. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In: Sudnow D. (ed). Studies in social interaction. New York, The Free Press, pp. 75–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Traum, D., Bos, J., Cooper, R., Larsson, S., Lewin, I., Matheson, C., & Poesio, M. (1999). A model of dialogue moves and information state revision. Trindi Project Deliverable D2.1, 1999.

  • Traum D., Larsson S. (2003). The information state approach to dialogue management. In van Kuppevelt J., Smith R.W. (eds). Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 325–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz D. (1975). Understanding line drawings of scenes with shadows. In: Winston P.H. (ed). The psychology of computer vision. New York, McGraw-Hill, pp. 19–92

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research in Computing, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Paul Piwek

  2. Department of Computing Science, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

    Kees van Deemter

Authors
  1. Paul Piwek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kees van Deemter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Piwek.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11168-008-9049-3

About this article

Cite this article

Piwek, P., van Deemter, K. Generating under Global Constraints: the Case of Scripted Dialogue. Res on Lang and Comput 5, 237–263 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-007-9029-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-007-9029-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation