<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="E91-1033">
  <Title>EXPLOITING CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE FOR GENERATING CONCISE EXPLANATIONS</Title>
  <Section position="7" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5. EXAMPLES
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The mechanism described has been implemented in CommonLisp on a SUN4. We demonstrate the system's behavior by means of the effects of three different user models when expressing most adequately the expIanation (represented in Figure 4) to the question: &amp;quot;Why is person A in room B and not in room C?&amp;quot; The user models applied comprise stereotypes for a &amp;quot;local employee&amp;quot; (he/she is acquainted with all information about the actual office), for a &amp;quot;novice&amp;quot; (who does not know anything), and for an &amp;quot;office plan expert&amp;quot; (who is assumed to know I-Rule 1 (1) only). Fact (5) is known to anybody, as it is presupposed by the question.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The process is simple for the &amp;quot;local employee': Since he/she also knows facts (2) to (4), the first hypothesis (I-Rule 1) provides the missing information. The first hypothesis is identical for the &amp;quot;novice', but a series of inferences is needed to prove its adequacy. First, a part of C-Rule 2 matches (1) and, as A is the only person referred to in the question, it is inferred that A is a group leader, which is what fact (2) expresses.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Then, substituting A and B in I-Rule 1 results in the evidence that B is a single room, thus proving fact (3) as well. Finally, C-Rule 1 is applicable by substituting B and C for the variables el and e2, respectively, concluding that C is not a single room (and, in fact, a double room if this is the only other possible type of room).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The first hypothesis for the &amp;quot;expert&amp;quot; consists of (2) only. Because experts are assumed to be acquainted with I-Rule 1, C-Rule 3 can be applied proving the relevance of (1). Then, processing can continue as this is done after the first inference step for the &amp;quot;novice', so that fact (2) is obtained as the best explanation for the expert.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> ,m i ,,Jl i  (1) (and (Rule 1) &amp;quot;Group leaders must be in single rooms&amp;quot; (2) (group-leader A) &amp;quot;A is a group leader&amp;quot; (3) (single-room B) &amp;quot;B is a single room&amp;quot; (4) (double-room (2) &amp;quot;(2 is a double room&amp;quot; (5) (in B A)) &amp;quot;A is in room B&amp;quot;</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>