<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P95-1019">
  <Title>Response Generation in Collaborative Negotiation*</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="136" type="relat">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Related Work
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Researchers have studied the analysis and generation of arguments (Birnbaum et al., 1980; Reichman, 1981; Cohen, 1987; Sycara, 1989; Quilici, 1992; Maybury, 1993); however, agents engaging in argumentative dialogues are solely interested in winning an argument and thus exhibit different behavior from collaborative agents. Sidner (1992; 1994) formulated an artificial language for modeling collaborative discourse using propo~acceptance and proposal/rejection sequences; however, her work is descriptive and does not specify response generation strategies for agents involved in collaborative interactions. null Webber and Joshi (1982) have noted the importance of a cooperative system providing support for its responses.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> They identified strategies that a system can adopt in justifying its beliefs; however, they did not specify the criteria under which each of these strategies should be selected.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2">  Walker (1994) described a method of determining when to include optional warrants to justify a claim based on factors such as communication cost, inference cost, and cost of memory retrieval. However, her model focuses on determining when to include informationally redundant utterances, whereas our model determines whether or not justification is needed for a claim to be convincing and, ff so, selects appropriate evidence from the system's private beliefs to support the claim.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Caswey et al. (Cawsey et al., 1993; Logan et al., 1994) introduced the idea of utilizing a belief revision mechanism (Galliers, 1992) to predict whether a set of evidence is sufficient to change a user's existing belief and to generate responses for information retrieval dialogues in a library domain. They argued that in the library dialogues they analyzed, &amp;quot;in no cases does negotiation extend beyond the initial belief conflict and its immediate resolution:' (Logan et al., 1994, page 141).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> However, our analysis of naturally-occurring consultation dialogues (Columbia University Transcripts, 1985; SRI Transcripts, 1992) shows that in other domains conflict resolution does extend beyond a single exchange of conflicting befiefs; therefore we employ a re, cursive model for collaboration that captures extended negotiation and represents the structure of the discourse. Furthermore, their system deals with a single conflict, while our model selects a focus in its pursuit of conflict resolution when multiple conflicts arise. In addition, we provide a process for selecting among multiple possible pieces of evidence.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>