Cited by 4Speech and dialogue systemsLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Attentive Speaking. From Listener Feedback to Interactive Adaptation

Open access
Buschmeier, Hendrik·2018·Universität Bielefeld

Abstract

Dialogue is an interactive endeavour in which participants jointly pursue the goal of reaching understanding. Since participants enter the interaction with their individual conceptualisation of the world and their idiosyncratic way of using language, understanding cannot, in general, be reached by exchanging messages that are encoded when speaking and decoded when listening. Instead, speakers need to design their communicative acts in such a way that listeners are likely able to infer what is meant. Listeners, in turn, need to provide evidence of their understanding in such a way that speakers can infer whether their communicative acts were successful. This is often an interactive and iterative process in which speakers and listeners work towards understanding by jointly coordinating their communicative acts through feedback and adaptation. Taking part in this interactive process requires dialogue participants to have ‘interactional intelligence’. This conceptualisation of dialogue is rather uncommon in formal or technical approaches to dialogue modelling. This thesis argues that it may, nevertheless, be a promising research direction for these fields, because it de-emphasises raw language processing performance and focusses on fundamental interaction skills. Interactionally intelligent artificial conversational agents may thus be able to reach understanding with their interlocutors by drawing upon such competences. This will likely make them more robust, more understandable, more helpful, more effective, and more human-like. This thesis develops conceptual and computational models of interactional intelligence for artificial conversational agents that are limited to (1) the speaking role, and (2) evidence of understanding in form of communicative listener feedback (short but expressive verbal/vocal signals, such as ‘okay’, ‘mhm’ and ‘huh’, head gestures, and gaze). This thesis argues that such ‘attentive speaker agents’ need to be able (1) to probabilistically reason about, infer, and represent their interlocutors’ listening related mental states (e.g., their degree of understanding), based on their interlocutors’ feedback behaviour; (2) to interactively adapt their language and behaviour such that their interlocutors’ needs, derived from the attributed mental states, are taken into account; and (3) to decide when they need feedback from their interlocutors and how they can elicit it using behavioural cues.This thesis describes computational models for these three processes, their integration in an incremental behaviour generation architecture for embodied conversational agents, and a semi-autonomous interaction study in which the resulting attentive speaker agent is evaluated. The evaluation finds that the computational models of attentive speaking developed in this thesis enable conversational agents to interactively reach understanding with their human interlocutors (through feedback and adaptation) and that these interlocutors are willing to provide natural communicative listener feedback to such an attentive speaker agent. The thesis shows that computationally modelling interactional intelligence is generally feasible, and thereby raises many new research questions and engineering problems in the interdisciplinary fields of dialogue and artificial conversational agents.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.4119/unibi/2918295

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The minimal mentalizing process enables the agent to adapt its presentation in a high-level fashion, e.g., by being more redundant or by repeating information that is already considered grounded.

    “Buschmeier (2018) calls this process a 'minimal' form of mentalizing (following the concept of a 'most minimal partner model' Galati and Brennan, 2010), which enables the agent to adapt its presentation in a high-level fashion, e.g., by being more redundant or by repeating information that is already considered grounded.”

    From Modeling Feedback in Interaction With Conversational Agents—A Review (2022) · cites this paper as Buschmeier (2018)

  • In the attributed listener state model, the user's feedback behaviors, relevant features of the agent's utterances, and dialogue context are used in a Bayesian network to reason about the user's likely mental state of listening, specifically whether contact, perception, understanding, acceptance and agreement are believed to be low, medium, or high.

    “In this model of feedback understanding, the user's feedback behaviors, relevant features of the agent's utterances, and the dialogue context are used in a Bayesian network to reason about the user's likely mental state of listening , more specifically whether contact, perception, understanding, acceptance and agreement (see Section 2) are believed to be low, medium, or high (Buschmeier and Kopp,”

    From Modeling Feedback in Interaction With Conversational Agents—A Review (2022) · cites this paper as Buschmeier, 2018

  • Elicitation cues used by conversational agents are connected to responses by the human conversation partner.

    “When elicitation cues are used by conversational agents, it has been shown that the cues are actually connected to responses by the human conversation partner, indicating that elicitation cues can be employed by conversational systems (Misu et al., 2011a,b; Reidsma et al., 2011; Buschmeier, 2018).”

    From Modeling Feedback in Interaction With Conversational Agents—A Review (2022) · cites this paper as Buschmeier, 2018

  • It is unclear how planning-based multi-level multimodal output generation can be adapted to work in a dynamic and incremental human-agent interaction.

    “In general, it is unclear how planningbased multi-level multimodal output generation can be adapted to work in a dynamic and incremental human-agent interaction (Buschmeier, 2018, Section 8.3)”

    From Modeling Feedback in Interaction With Conversational Agents—A Review (2022) · cites this paper as Buschmeier, 2018

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Buschmeier, H.
Corresponding author
Buschmeier, Hendrik
Venue
Universität Bielefeld
Publisher
Universität Bielefeld
Published
2018
OpenAlex
W2789677997
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
Type
dissertation
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld (Universität Bielefeld) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (FKZ 16SV7271K)
  • Universität Bielefeld
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
listener feedback, chatbots, embodied conversational agents, probabilistic inference, behavioral cues, dialogue modeling, human-agent interaction, vocalizations

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