<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C00-2107">
  <Title>Realizing Expressions of Doubt in Collaborative Dialogue *</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="740" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Previous Work
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In Chu-Carroll and Carberry (1998) the collaborative planning process is modeled as a Propose-Evaluate-Modify cycle, in which an agent is able to detect conflicts in belief and initiate collaborative negotiation subdialogues to attempt to resolve the conflicts. They use a modified version of Galliers belief revision inechanisln(Galliers, 1992; Logan et al., 1994) to determine whether to accept a proposition and in determining which conflicting beliefs to use to refute an utterance that is not accepted. However, their work does not address how an exi)ression of doubt should be realized in a natural language utterance.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Vander Linden and Di Eugenio (Vander Linden and Di Eugenio, 1996) studied negative imperatives 3Absolute rejection may be expressed as doubt for the sake of politeness. We do not address that issue here.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2">  in instructional texts. They used machine learnlug to correlate features of an action X's relationship to the reader in terms of attention, awareness, and safety, with whether it was realize(t as Don't X, Never X, or Take care not to X. In our research, we draw on their notion of identifying how features of the generation context correlate with how an utterance should be expressed. However, our work differs Dora theirs in that we must deal with an agent's beliePSs motiw~ting his doubt and we consider a wider range of variations in realization.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>