On Abstract Models and Conversation Policies

Elio, Renée; Haddadi, Afsaneh

doi:10.1007/10722777_20

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For a wide range of applications, particularly those that are cooperative or coordinated in nature, it seems that what agents must exchange messages about is their progress on interdependent tasks. The abstract specification of task interdependencies and task progress can serve as part of a jointly held conversation 'policy' about goal achievement [13,19]. Such a policy can serve the same role as a protocol, by defining whether it is normative to send a particular message type at a particular point in time and by defining the normative content of a message in different contexts.…”

Section: Message Primitives For Error Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, thinking about when to send a not-understood message is a different way of thinking about what it means to understand, i.e., for an agent to proceed with assimilating a message. We can think of understanding as the success of a message's 'extended perlocutionary effects,' i.e., how a message alters an agent's state, such that the agent behaves differently for having received and assimilated the message [13,36]. This is consistent with the view of a sentence's meaning as a function on information states [20,44]: if an agent is in a new information state, then that agent has the potential to behave differently.…”

Section: Message Primitives For Error Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Normative Communication Models for Agent

Elio

Petrinjak

2005

Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An agent message is an attempted action upon the information state of the receiver that, if successful, would cause the receiver to move to a new information state. A model of normative communication can define when messages are not merely unsuccessful but instead are illegal or impossible actions upon the receiver's internal state. The model uses the preconditions of the other core message types, coupled with a model of task interdependencies, agent roles, and belief-desire-intention elements, to define the preconditions for sending a canonical not-understood error message. By defining the space of messages that are legal actions on an agent's internal state, a normative communication model also defines a set of 'reasons' that can accompany the error message. A not-understood error message signals a mismatch between agent interaction models and the accompanying reason opens the possibility for agents to realign their respective models. The paper discusses the matters arising from this possibility. This approach assumes that normative communication behavior reflects normative domain behavior. It also assumes that each agent accesses the normative model, in contrast with more centralized frameworks for defining normative interaction among agents and identifying interaction errors.

show abstract

Section: Message Primitives For Error Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Message Primitives For Error Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normative Communication Models for Agent

Elio

Petrinjak

2005

Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both the landmark-based representation for protocol families as well as action expression representation for protocols presented in the current work make the goal or the purpose of a protocol explicit. Some research that has touched upon this aspect of protocols can be found in (Smith et al 1998;Elio and Haddadi 2000;Pitt et al 2001), but this prior work does not present a complete or integrated approach. Work by Pitt and others explicitly links "successful outcomes" (ostensibly, goals) to conversation protocols but does so by annotating a syntactic framework with semantic summary expressions in such a manner that the two are not directly connected.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The motivation for joint action expressions also comes by analogy with natural language wherein dialogs are treated as joint actions Grosz and Kraus 1993;Clark 1996). Recently, other researchers have also started looking at conversation protocols as a joint activity (Elio and Haddadi 2000;Vongkasem and Chaib-draa 2000) by analogy with natural dialog. The communicative actions in the joint action expression for a protocol achieve the landmarks of that protocol in the required order.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward A Formalism for Conversation Protocols Using Joint Intention Theory

Kumar

Huber

Cohen

et al. 2002

Computational Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conversation protocols are used to achieve certain goals or to bring about certain states in the world. Therefore, one may identify the landmarks or the states that must be brought about during the goal-directed execution of a protocol. Accordingly, the landmarks, characterized by propositions that are true in the state represented by that landmark, are the most important aspect of a protocol. Families of conversation protocols can be expressed formally as partially ordered landmarks after the landmarks necessary to achieve a goal have been identified. Concrete protocols represented as joint action expressions can, then, be derived from the partially ordered landmarks and executed directly by joint intention interpreters. This approach of applying Joint Intention theory to protocols also supports flexibility in the actions used to get to landmarks, shortcutting protocol execution, automatic exception handling, and correctness criterion for protocols and protocol compositions.

show abstract

“…The semantics underlying the message primitives used in our framework, like others, borrow heavily from speech act theory [23], and the semantics are based on a number of pragmatic principles discussed in Haddadi [12,13]. The syntax of our messages is not our focus here; examples can be found in [6]. Briefly, a message consists of a specific message or performative type, a specific object of discourse, and a partially specified content.…”

Section: Figure 1: Schematic Relation Between Task and Discourse Statmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abstract task specifications for conversation policies

Elio

Haddadi

Singh

2000

Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under some views, a crucial function for conversation policies is to "constrain the messages that appear on the wire,'' for there can be a many-to-many mapping between an agent's intention and the message primitive used to express that intention. In this paper, we argue that the way to constrain messages is to constrain intentions. We propose a pragmatic approach to doing this through an abstract task specification or model. Abstract task specifications are based on a simple state-space representation for problem formulation, and this representation can be used to delimit the agents' task intentions and discourse intentions. This analysis supports a flexible and pragmatic way of handling "unexpected'' messages by reference to the abstract task specification. We see an abstract task specification as one component of a publicly posted conversation policy. A simple search-assistant agent was implemented within a BDI architecture to illustrate application of these ideas.

show abstract

On Abstract Models and Conversation Policies

Cited by 7 publications

References 8 publications

Normative Communication Models for Agent

Normative Communication Models for Agent

Toward A Formalism for Conversation Protocols Using Joint Intention Theory

Abstract task specifications for conversation policies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About