Cited by 85Artificial Intelligence in GamesAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningSpeech and dialogue systems

Say Anything: Using Textual Case-Based Reasoning to Enable Open-Domain Interactive Storytelling

Swanson, Reid, Gordon, Andrew S.·2012·ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems

Abstract

We describe Say Anything, a new interactive storytelling system that collaboratively writes textual narratives with human users. Unlike previous attempts, this interactive storytelling system places no restrictions on the content or direction of the user’s contribution to the emerging storyline. In response to these contributions, the computer continues the storyline with narration that is both coherent and entertaining. This capacity for open-domain interactive storytelling is enabled by an extremely large repository of nonfiction personal stories, which is used as a knowledge base in a case-based reasoning architecture. In this article, we describe the three main components of our case-based reasoning approach: a million-item corpus of personal stories mined from internet weblogs, a case retrieval strategy that is optimized for narrative coherence, and an adaptation strategy that ensures that repurposed sentences from the case base are appropriate for the user’s emerging fiction. We describe a series of evaluations of the system’s ability to produce coherent and entertaining stories, and we compare these narratives with single-author stories posted to internet weblogs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2362394.2362398

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the Academic context, support for planning processes is typically intended to help users connect and structure their own ideas to accomplish complex tasks.

    “Support for planning processes are typically intended to help users connect and structure their own ideas to accomplish complex tasks [103,126].”
  • In the Creative context, support for reviewing features a mix of quantitative and qualitative feedback, with a focus on the AI evaluating text and providing suggestions rather than revising it directly.

    “Support for reviewing features a mix of quantitative and qualitative feedback, with a focus on the AI evaluating text and providing suggestions rather than revising it directly [20,126].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Swanson, R., & Gordon, A. S.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Venue
ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems
Published
2012-09
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
1-35
ISSN
  • 2160-6455 (ISSN-L)
  • 2160-6463
OpenAlex
W2128116572
Cited by
85
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5
FWCI
6.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Army
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
interactive storytelling, case-based reasoning, personal narrative, blogs, case retrieval, narrative coherence, story adaptation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review