Mixed-Initiative Interaction Session

A Mixed-Initiative Interaction Session is an interactive session where more than one agent demonstrates agent initiative.

• See: Single-Agent Initiative Session.

---

---

References

1997

• http://www.cs.utep.edu/novick/papers/mi.aaai.html
  • QUOTE: Mixed-initiative interaction seems to be one of those things that people think that they can recognize when they see it even if they can't define it. The earliest work on mixed-initiative didn't define the term explicitly (cf., Carbonell, 1970). Initiative is typically expressed as "taking the conversational lead" (Walker & Whittaker, 1990) or "driving the task" (Smith, 1994).

    What these expressions mean is a much cloudier question. It is often held (e.g., Smith, 1994) that initiative does not include turn-taking but some (e.g., Novick, 1988; van Lier, 1988) have used "mixed initiative" to describe the case where the turns are negotiated rather than rotely determined by a single party or the modality of interaction. Another definition involves characterizing varying initiative in terms of multiple, interacting speaker-specific plans versus a single joint plan (Kitano & Van Ess-Dykema, 1991). Other definitions distinguish whether information was independently contributed to the conversation or, in contrast, was produced to meet some sort of dialogue obligation (e.g., Fischer, 1990; Walker & Whittaker, 1990).

    Models of mixed initiative also differ with respect to whether they can be characterized by (1) a single axis running from one conversant to the other (e.g., Novick, 1988; Walker & Whittaker, 1990; Smith, 1994; Guinn, 1995) or (2) multiple independent axes (e.g., van Lier, 1988; Kinginger, 1994).

    …

    From the elements discussed with respect to the scenarios, we suggest that it is possible to extract three factors that help untangle aspects of previous models. These factors are choice of task, choice of speaker, and choice of outcome:

    • Choice of Task. One factor is choice of task. The initiative models of Grosz and Sidner (1986), Walker and Whittaker (1990), Carbonell (1970), Smith (1994), and Guinn (1995), can all be viewed as involving determination of what the conversation is about. For example, Guinn describes initiative in terms of determining which goal decomposition will be followed in the conversation. In Smith's (1994) model, the "directive" level of control is characterized by the computer's recommending a task goal for completion.
    • Choice of Speaker. Another factor is control over choice of speaker. The initiative models of Novick (1988), van Lier (1988), Kinginger (1994) and Burke (1994) all explicitly consider turn-taking as a component or indicator of initiative. Initiative, in this sense, has consequences for the structure of the dialogue. Burke (p. 99) noted that the "initiatory turn of a sequence thus controls not only the floor at the time of the turn itself, but also controls other turns in the sequence and, therefore, constrains subsequent turns to conform to the rules of the sequence." This is one of the factors that differentiates, for example, an automated teller machine from a human teller.
    • Choice of Outcome. A third factor involves choice of outcome. This is a logical extension of control of task, in the sense that "to complete the goal" (Smith, 1994) means producing a result intended by one or more of the conversants. The choice of outcome then follows the determination of task and involves allocating the decision or action necessary to achieve the task.

---