Skip to main content
Log in

Natural language scripting within conversational agent design

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 26 October 2013

Abstract

This paper presents a novel Semantic-Based Conversational Agent (SCA). Traditional conversational agents (CA) interpret scripts consisting of structural patterns of sentences, which take no consideration of semantic content. The script writer must therefore anticipate the many variations of input the user may respond with during dialogue. This is evidently a high maintenance task. Furthermore, different script writers possess differing levels of skill and as such this can prove to be an exasperating task. The proposed SCA interprets scripts consisting of natural language sentences by means of a semantic sentence similarity measure. User input is measured semantically against the natural language sentences of the current context in order to respond with an appropriate output string. Such scripting is effortless and alleviates the burden of the traditional pattern-scripted languages. Experiments have involved the use of script writers to demonstrate the use of the language. Results have highlighted the potential of the language and shown improvements on traditional pattern-scripted languages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Michie D (2001) Return of the imitation game. Electron Trans Artif Intell 6(2):203–221

    Google Scholar 

  2. Massaro DW, Cohen MM, Beskow WJ, Cole RA (1998) Developing and evaluating conversational agents. University of California, Santa Cruz

  3. Cassell J (2000) Embodied conversational agents. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sanders GA, Scholtz J (2000) Measurement and evaluation of embodied conversational agents. In: Cassell J, Sullivan J, Prevost S, Churchill E (eds) Embodied conversational agents. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Isbister K, Doyle P (2004) The blind men and the elephant revisited: evaluating interdisciplinary embodied conversational agents. In: Ruttkay Z, Pelachaud C (eds) From brows to trust. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, pp 3–26. Chapter 1

    Google Scholar 

  6. Malatesta L, Raouzalou A, Karpouzis K, Kollias S (2009) Towards modeling embodied conversational agent character profiles using appraisal theory predictions in expression synthesis. Appl Intell 30(1):58–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Weizenbaum J (1966) ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun ACM 9:36–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. O’Shea K, Bandar Z, Crockett K (2008) A novel approach for constructing conversational agents using sentence similarity measures. In: World Congress on engineering, international conference on data mining and knowledge engineering, London, pp 321–1149

    Google Scholar 

  9. O’Shea K, Bandar Z, Crockett K (2009) A semantic-based conversational agent framework. In: The 4th international conference for Internet technology and secured transactions (ICITST-2009), London, 9–12 November 2009, pp 92–99. Technical Co-Sponsored by IEEE UK/RI Communications Chapter

    Google Scholar 

  10. O’Shea K, Bandar Z, Crockett K (2010) Application of a semantic-based conversational agent to student debt management. In: World Congress on computational intelligence, IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems, Barcelona, July 2010, pp 760–766

    Google Scholar 

  11. O’Shea K, Bandar Z, Crockett K (2010) A proposed mechanism to memory simulation within a semantic-based conversational agent framework. In: IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, Istanbul, October 2010

    Google Scholar 

  12. O’Shea K, Bandar Z, Crockett K (2009) Towards a new generation of conversational agents using sentence similarity. In: Ao S-L, Gelman L (eds) Advances in electrical engineering and computational science. Lecture notes in electrical engineering, vol 39. Springer, Berlin, pp 505–514

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. O’Shea K, Bandar Z, Crockett K (2011) A conversational agent framework using semantic analysis. Int J Intell Comput Res 1(1):23–32. ISSN 2042 4655

    Google Scholar 

  14. Colby K (1975) Artificial paranoia: a computer simulation of paranoid process. Pergamon, New York. Cited by Mauldin ML (1994) Chatterbots, Tinymuds, and the Turing test: entering the Loebner prize competition. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  15. Carpenter R (2006) Jabberwacky. http://jabberwacky.com. Accessed 14 Apr 2011

  16. Chatbots (2009) http://chatbots.org/chatbot/freudbot. Accessed 13 Mar 2011

  17. ejTalk (2009) http://ejTalk.com. Accessed 13 Mar 2011

  18. Chatbots (2010) http://chatbots.org/chatbot/suzette. Accessed 13 Mar 2011

  19. Wallace R (2003) The elements of AIML style. ALICE Artificial Intelligence Foundations. Cited by Schmaker RP and Chen H (2008) Interaction analysis of the ALICE Chatterbot: a two-study investigation of dialog and domain questioning. University of Arizona

    Google Scholar 

  20. Convagent (2001) InfoBot scripter’s manual. www.convagent.com. Accessed 14 Mar 2011

  21. Landauer TK, Foltz PW, Laham D (1998) Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Process 25(2–3):259–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. O’Shea K (2012) An approach to conversational agent design using semantic sentence similarity. Appl Intell 37(4):558–568

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Li Y, McLean D, Bandar Z, O’Shea JD, Crockett K (2006) Sentence similarity based on semantic nets and corpus statistics. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 18(8):1138–1149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sammut C (2001) Managing context in a conversational agent. Comput Inf Sci 3(7). 10.1109/wI-IATW.2006.105

  25. Li Y, Bandar ZA, McLean D (2003) An approach for measuring semantic similarity between words using multiple information sources. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 15(4):871–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Miller GA (1995) WordNet: a lexical database for English. Commun ACM 38(11):39–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Brown Corpus Information (2005) http://www.clwww.essex.ac.uk/w3s/corpus_ling/content/corpora/list/private/brown/brown.htm. Accessed 01 Apr 2011

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen O’Shea.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Shea, K. Natural language scripting within conversational agent design. Appl Intell 40, 189–197 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-012-0408-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-012-0408-2

Keywords

Navigation