Response Generation in Collaborative Negotiation
Jennifer Chu-Carroll, Sandra Carberry
Abstract
In collaborative planning activities, since the agents are autonomous and heterogeneous, it is inevitable that conflicts arise in their beliefs during the planning process. In cases where such conflicts are relevant to the task at hand, the agents should engage in collaborative negotiation as an attempt to square away the discrepancies in their beliefs. This paper presents a computational strategy for detecting conflicts regarding proposed beliefs and for engaging in collaborative negotiation to resolve the conflicts that warrant resolution. Our model is capable of selecting the most effective aspect to address in its pursuit of conflict resolution in cases where multiple conflicts arise, and of selecting appropriate evidence to justify the need for such modification. Furthermore, by capturing the negotiation process in a recursive Propose-Evaluate-Modify cycle of actions, our model can successfully handle embedded negotiation subdialogues.
Create a lesson
Related papers
A Memory-Based Approach to Learning Shallow Natural Language Patterns
Shlomo Argamon, Ido Dagan, Yuval Krymolowski
A Comparison of WordNet and Roget's Taxonomy for Measuring Semantic Similarity
Michael Mc Hale
Some Ontological Principles for Designing Upper Level Lexical Resources
Nicola Guarino
Towards an implementable dependency grammar
Timo Jarvinen, Pasi Tapanainen
A Variant of Earley Parsing
Mark-Jan Nederhof, Giorgio Satta
Segregatory Coordination and Ellipsis in Text Generation
James Shaw