An agent model for NL dialog interfaces

  • Liliana Ardissono
  • Guido Boella
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1480)


Agent theories take as their paradigm human intentional behavior; however, as far as agent interaction is concerned, they have not yet satisfactorily taken into account the requirements raised by studies on human Natural Language communication, the most developed means of interaction. The fundamental missing point is the role of intention recognition, which is the basis of human dialog interactions. In this paper, we describe a declarative agent architecture for modeling social agent behavior, with particular attention to Natural Language dialog. The architecture can be used both to recognize a speaker's intentions and generate intention-driven behavior in agent interactions; therefore, it is suited to interface agents for HCI, which require a friendly interaction with users.


Multi-Agent Systems NL Processing Dialog 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J.F. Allen. Recognizing intentions from natural language utterances. In M. Brady and R.C. Berwick, editors, Computational models of discourse, pages 107–166. MIT Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Ardissono, G. Boella, and R. Damiano. A plan-based model of misunderstandings in cooperative dialogue. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Ardissono, G. Boella, and L. Lesmo. Indirect speech acts and politeness: A computational approach. In Proc. 17th Cognitive Science Conference, pages 316–321, Pittsburgh, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Ardissono, G. Boella, and L. Lesmo. Recognition of problem-solving plans in dialogue interpretation. In Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on User Modeling, pages 195–197, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Ardissono, G. Boella, and L. Lesmo. An agent architecture for NL dialog modeling. In Proc. Second Workshop on Human-Computer Conversation, page to appear, Bellagio, Italy, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Ardissono, A. Lombardo, and D. Sestero. A flexible approach to cooperative response generation in information-seeking dialogues. In Proc. 31st Annual Meeting ACL, pages 274–276, Columbus, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.E. Bratman, D.J. Israel, and M.E. Pollack. Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 4:349–355, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Bretier and D. Sadek. A rational agent as the kernel of a cooperative spoken dialogue system: implementing a logical theory of interaction. In J.P. Muller, M. J. Wooldridge, and N.R. Jennings, editors, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence n.1193 Intelligent Agents III, pages 189–203. Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Carberry, Z. Kazi, and L. Lambert. Modeling discourse, problem-solving, and domain goals incrementally in task-oriented dialogue. In Proc 3rd Int. Workshop on User Modeling, pages 192–201, Wadern, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Castelfranchi and R. Falcone. From task delegation to role delegation. In M. Lenzerini, editor, LNAI 1321. AI * IA 97: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, pages 278–289. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Chu-Carroll and S. Carberry. Response generation in collaborative negotiation. In Proc. 33rd Annual Meeting of ACL, pages 136–143, Cambridge, MA, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P.R. Cohen and H.J. Levesque. Confirmation and joint action. In Proc. 12th IJCAI, pages 951–957, Sydney, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    T.W. Finin, Y. Labrou, and J. Mayfield. KQML as an agent communication language. In J. Bradshaw, editor, Software Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R.J. Firby. An investigation into reactive planning in complex domains. In Proc. 6th Conf. AAAI, Seattle (WA), 1987.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Georgeff and F.F. Ingrand. Decision-making in an embedded reasoning system. In Proc. 11th IJCAI, pages 972–978, Detroit, Michigan, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Grosz and S. Kraus. Collaborative plans for complex group action. Artificial Intelligence, 86(2):269–357, 1996.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    K.E. Lochbaum. The use of knowledge preconditions in language processing. In Proc. 14th IJCAI, pages 1260–1265, Montreal, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C.J. Petrie. Agent-based engineering, the web, and intelligence. IEEE Expert, December:24–29, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    L.A. Ramshaw. A three-level model for plan exploration. In Proc. 29th Annual Meeting of ACL, pages 39–46, Berkeley,CA, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Rao and M.P. Georgeff. Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In Proc. 2th Int. Conf. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR:91), pages 473–484, Cambridge, MA, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Rao and M.P. Georgeff. An abstract architecture for rational agents. In B. Nebel C. Rich, Swartout, editor, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. (KR:92), pages 439–449, Cambridge, MA, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A.S. Rao. Means-end plan recognition — towards a theory of reactive recognition. In Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR:94), pages 497–508, 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    I.A. Smith and P.R. Cohen. Toward a semantics for an agent communications language based on speech-acts. In Proc. 14th Conf. AAAI, pages 24–31, Portland, 1996.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Steiner. An overview of FIPA 97. Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. Weida and D.J. Litman. Terminological reasoning with constraint networks and an application to plan recognition. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. (KR:92), pages 282–293, Cambridge, MA, 1992.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    T. Winograd and F. Flores. Understanding Computers and Cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1986.MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. Wooldridge and N. Jennings. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2):115–152, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liliana Ardissono
    • 1
  • Guido Boella
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations