1. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Introduction to dialogue systems Staffan Larsson Dialogsystem HT04

2. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Overview Why Develop Speech Applications for the Telephone (Larson ch.1) Dialogue and dialogue genres Dialogue modeling and dialogue systems Research areas & local projects History of dialogue systems Methodology for dialogue systems design (Agenter, dialog och talakter) (Dialogspel)

3. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Chapter 1. Why Develop Speech Applications for the Telephone ©2002 Larson Technical Services

4. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Discussion Questions Why are speaking and listening fundamental to our lives? Why use speech to interact with a computer? When might speech not be appropriate for interacting with a computer? Why are speech applications possible today? What are the limitations of speech as a user interface for a computer? What can you do with a single call? What are some example speech applications? ©2002 Larson Technical Services

5. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Speaking and Listening Are Fundamental to Our Lives. People interact by speaking and listening. It’s “unnatural” when people don’t speak. We spend the first three years of our lives learning how to speak and listen. Section 1.1©2002 Larson Technical Services

6. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Speaking and Listening to a Computer Is Natural and Convenient. Despite physical handicaps such as blindness or poor physical dexterity To bypass the limitations of small keyboards and screens When the device has no keyboard When callers work with their hands and eyes At anytime during the day With instant connection without being placed on “hold.” When languages do not lend themselves to keyboarding To convey emotion—“earcons” To access all types of time-sensitive data To access all types of location-sensitive data To access all types of public and personal information To control computerized processes and activities Section 1.2©2002 Larson Technical Services

7. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab When Speaking and Listening to a Computer May Be Inappropriate. Graphics Pointing Selecting Limitation of human memory Impact of noise –The computer cannot hear –The caller cannot hear Concern about privacy Section 1.3©2002 Larson Technical Services

8. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Speech Applications are Possible Today Speech application enablers –Increased computing power at less expense –Improved algorithms –Improved dialog design –Availability of telephones and cell phones Section 1.4©2002 Larson Technical Services

9. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Speech Application Challenges Limitations of speech interfaces –Speech technologies are not perfect. –Callers have false expectations. –Speech is a transient medium. Section 1.5©2002 Larson Technical Services

10. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Types of Speech Applications Application Classes Technologies Touch- Speech Touch- Multimodal ToneOnlyTone + OnlySpeech Speech inNoYesYesYes KeypadYesNoYesYes Mouse and keyboardNoNoNoYes Speech outYesYesYesYes Display monitorNoNoNoYes ©2002 Larson Technical Services

11. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab What Can You Do with a Single Phone Call? Commerce –Self-service queries and transactions –Support desks, order tracking airline arrival and departure, cinema and theater booking, home banking, e-commerce Content –Public information—Community information; local, national, and international news; entertainment information –Personal information—Calendar, addresses, telephone lists, to- do lists, shopping lists, calorie and exercise logs, personal diaries Communication –Initiate telephone calls, sending and receiving e-mail and voice- mail Section 1.6©2002 Larson Technical Services

12. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab What Can You Do with a Single Phone Call? New dial tone—“How may I help you?” Voice portals—Verbal Web sites that enable caller interaction with multiple services by speaking and listening Section 1.6©2002 Larson Technical Services

13. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Voice Portals Mass market voice portal –E-mail –Driving instructions –Traffic conditions –Weather –Telephone number search –Business reminders –Local information –Stock quotes –Personalized news –Entertainment information –Sports –Horoscopes Corporate external voice portal –Telephone attendant –Product and service information –Order entry –Help desk –Banking –Sales Corporate internal voice portal –Customer relationship management –Product availability and pricing –Order status –Human resource information –Supply chain management –Customer account information Section 1.7©2002 Larson Technical Services

14. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Key Concepts Speech enables new applications and new users. Speech enables the hands-free and eyes-free computer access. Speech enables callers to access computers from whereever they are—at work, but away from their desk; at home; or on the road. Speech has drawbacks: –No pointing –Stretches limits of human short-term memory –Privacy Callers use voice applications to access commerce, content, and communication services. ©2002 Larson Technical Services

15. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Dialogue and dialogue genres

16. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Dialogue & dialogue systems Dia logos = through language What is interesting for dialogue system applications? –Spoken natural language human-computer dialogue in specific domains But maybe also –Written? –Multimodal (incl. graphics)?

17. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Discourse and Dialogue Discourse (in one sense of the word) –Text; monologue Dialog –Speech; multiple participants Really two independent dimensions –Modality: text / speech ( / gesture / image ) –monologue or dialogue

18. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Dahlbäck (1997) taxonomy Modality: spoken/written Kinds of agents: human/computer Interaction: dialogue/monologue Context : spatial, temporal Number & type of tasks –Simultaneous? Dialogue-task distance –Similarity of dialogue structure – task structure Kinds of shared knowledge exploited –Perceptual, linguistic, cultural

19. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Discussion: Dahlbäck Several dimensions, some relevant but some not –We currently assume spoken human-computer dialogue –Dialogue-task distance perhaps too abstract –Context, kinds of shared knowledge used, and number of tasks relevant, but not yet included in our classification –Type of task similar to our concept of activity

20. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Allen et. al. (2001) technique usedexample tasktask complexity dialogue phenomena handled finite-state scriptlong-distance dialing least complexuser answers questions frame-basedgetting train timetable info user asks questions, simple clarifications by system sets of contextstravel booking agent shifts between predetermined topics plan-based models kitchen design consultant dynamically generated topic structures, collaborative negotiation subdialogues agent-based models disaster relief management most complex different modalities (e.g. planned world and actual world)

21. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Discussion:Allen et. al. Relates properties of system to properties of activity, BUT Based on technologies, not properties of activities –Dialogue phenomena don’t necessarily come in lumps Focus on information seeking and collaborative planning; some types of dialogue not included –Tutorial, Explanatory, Instructional…

22. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Desiderata for a classification of dialogue Based on multiple independent properties of (dialogue in) different activities Relating properties of activity to properties of system Covering not only information seeking and collaborative planning dialogue

23. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Some initial dimensions of classification Inquiry-oriented vs. Action-oriented dialogue Type of result: simple/complex Type of external process: active/passive Distribution of decision rights: shared/disjoint

24. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Inquiry-oriented vs. action-oriented dialogue IOD: raising and addressing issues –E.g. database search AOD: introduces (non-communicative) actions to performed (requests) –E.g. programming a Video Recorder Dialogue genre Moves/rulesInformation State components Inquiry- Oriented (IOD) ask answer Question stack Action- Oriented (AOD) request confirm Action stack

25. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Result type Is the primary result of the dialogue a simple or a complex information object? –Simple: proposition, action –Complex: plan, proof, explanation Complex results require update rules and information state components (e.g. a tree) enabling incremental construction Example: offline planning –U: Get me coffee –R: How do I do that? –U: First, go to the kitchen. –R: OK. And then? –U: Go to the coffee machine. –…

26. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Proactivity of external process Passive: database, simple device (e.g. Video Recorder) (Pro)active: device, e.g. robot, burglar alarm –May need to interrupt current dialogue, perhaps even interrupt user utterances This dimension correlates with –the way the system is connected to the device Is the device interface a resource (passive) or a module (active)? –System intitiative and turntaking mechanisms

27. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Distribution of decision rights Disjoint: each question directed to a specific DP ; this DP decides on the answer and does not need to negotiate Shared: some question(s) should be answered jointly; negotiation may be needed Dialogue system requirements for negotiation: –Dialogue move: propose –Information state component: a stack of pairs of issue under negotiation, and alternative solutions/answers to this issue N.B.: we here refer to collaborative negotiation (non- conflicting goals) –E.g. SunDial furniture selection task

28. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab activityIOD/AO D result typeexternal process decision rights database searchIODsimple: price etc. complex: itinerary passive (database) disjoint ticket bookingAOD+ IOD simple: flightpassive (database) disjoint simple device control AOD+ IOD simple: actionspassive or active disjoint instructional (sys instructs usr) AOD+ IOD simple: actionspassive (manual) disjoint offline planning, incl. itinerary planning, complex device control AODcomplex: plan(s)passive (planner) shared online planning, e.g. TRIPS AOD+ IOD complex: planactive (device+ planner) shared explanationIODcomplex: proof or explanation passive (inference engine) shared tutorialIOD/ AOD complex?passive (planner) disjoint narrationIODcomplex: narrativepassivedisjoint

29. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Possible additional activity-related factors Distribution of information –Symmetric: DPs have same kind of information –Asymmetric: DPs have different kinds of information –Relation to distribution of decision rights? Shared or conflicting goals –Conflicting goals may lead to non-collaborative negotiation, which would require argumentation acts, including rhetorical acts Number of simultaneous tasks (one or several) –But probably very few activities with just one task …

30. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Comments What we really are classifying are activities –Table shows a classification of activities according to features of a dialogue system needed to particitpate in dialogues in these activities How specific should our activities, or activity types, be? –Action oriented dialogue? Device control? VCR control? Dialogue with Panasonic VCR 4500? Is ”genre” still a useful term? –Could perhaps be reserved for very basic properties, such as IOD/AOD –Or have genres like ”AOD for active devices and collaborative negotiation and asymmetric distrubution of information”

31. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Dialogue modelling and dialogue systems

32. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Dialogue modelling Theoretical motivations –find structure of dialogue –explain structure –relate dialogue structure to informational and intentional structure Practical motivations –build dialogue systems to enable natural human- computer interaction –speech-to-speech translation –...

33. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Informal approaches to dialogue modelling speech act theory (Austin, Searle,...) –utterances are actions –illocutionary acts: ask, assert, instruct etc. discourse analysis (Schegloff, Sacks,...) –turn-taking, pre-sequences etc. dialogue games (Sinclair & Coulthard,...) –structure of dialogue segments (rather than separate utterances) –can e.g. be encoded as regular expressions or finite automata qna-game -> question qna-game* answer

34. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Dialogue management frameworks (computational approaches) Industry systems –finite state automata –form-based (VoiceXML) Research systems: –plan-based speech acts as plan operators –general reasoning (Sadek,...) often combined with plan-based Information state approach –generalises over all the above

35. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Why build dialogue systems? theoretical: test theories –e.g. what kind of information does the system need to keep track of? –problems complex system with many components how to evaluate (Turing test not so useful) practical: natural language interfaces –databases (train timetables etc) –electronic devices (mobile phones,...) –instructional/helpdesk systems –booking flights etc –tutorial systems

36. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab What does a system need to be able to do? speech recognition parsing, syntactic and semantic interpretation –resolve ambiguities –anaphora and ellipsis resolution, etc... dialogue management –how does an utterance change the state of the dialogue? –given the current state of the dialogue, what should the system do? natural language generation speech synthesis

37. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab Why spoken dialogue? Spoken dialogue is the natural way for people to communicate –computers should adapt to humans rather than the other way around important to enable system and user to communicate in a natural (human-like) way –mixed initiative –turntaking, feedback, barge-in –handle embedded subdialogues –...

38. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab What’s happening with dialogue systems Simple systems are being used commercially –Command systems (user command + system response) –Form-filling (system questions + user responses; system delivers info) Limited domains –need to encode domain-specific knowledge; –a general system would require general world knowledge, which may not be feasible –speech recognition is harder with large lexicon Need to bridge gap between dialogue theory and working systems

39. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab framework dataflow, datastructures, etc. Framework level Framework –Takes care of low-level programming: dataflow, datastructures etc. Examples –Current, TrindiKit, OAA, Communicator, SOAR

40. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab framework basic dialogue theory basic system dataflow, datastructures, etc. Basic dialogue system Formulate an application-independent dialogue theory to instantiate the framework Examples –GoDiS, VoiceXML, TRIPS,...

41. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab basic dialogue theory basic system genre-specific theory additions genre-specific system Genre- and modality-specific system Add genre- and modality-dependent components framework dataflow, datastructures, etc.

42. Goteborg University Dialogue Systems Lab basic dialogue theory domain & language resources basic system application genre-specific theory additions genre-specific system Application Add application-specific resources framework dataflow, datastructures, etc.