Comparability and Evaluation

Clarifying Criteria

Authors: Stefan Rank & Paolo Petta
Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence
Date: 2006-11-07

Presented at Humaine WP10WS • 2006-11-07. (Grey boxes like this one are notes or handout content.)

try to open the presentation in a new unadorned window, then switch to fullscreen (F11 normally). If the slide text doesn't fit in your browser window, try decreasing the text size, try <Ctrl>+<->. Use <space bar> to advance, <Page Up/Down> & <arrow keys> to navigate. <T> (or clicking the empty-set-sign in the top or bottom right corner) toggles between slideshow and outline. Type a number followed by Return to switch to a particular slide. Slide controls are hidden in the bottom right corner.

Hello my name is Stefan Rank. The title of my talk is ... This presentation tries to clarify criteria for designing and evaluating affective systems, first ask: what are these systems, what do they have in common.

What Do We Have In Common?

Models of human emotion provide essential insight for the design and control of machines interacting with humans

Emotion is supposed to help for example in allocating and focusing mental resources when goals compete, or when the environment changes. The social or the physical environment.

Scenarios for Comparabilty

Detailed scenarios of use

Emotion: What are situations / phenomena that we target?

Basis for asking: What are the functionalities wanted?

Necessary to provide detailed scenarios of use. <s> The scenarios of use contain the requirements and motivations for a specific agent or computational model and therefore allow to compare them. The scenarios make explicit what kind of emotional functionality is wanted in an agent.

Scenario-based Comparisons

range of emotional phenomena: critical property of the scenario.

What is a Scenario then?

A point in the niche space for affective agents

Possible purpose and environment of use

an idea of what a scenario consists of. most importantly: what are the emotional episodes that can take place.

Scenario Descriptions

examples for differing scenarios

Scenarios for Comparison

World: (real/virtual/augmented reality, dynamics, regularities, discrete/continuous in time and space, time-stepped or continuous execution); Agents: number and types (including humans), their tasks; Environment seen from the agents viewpoint: sensing/actuating, sensorimotor coupling, tool use, time-stepped/continuous, asynchronous change; Agent-Agent Interaction: separate or world mediated, repertoire, unconditional channels, human as (another) agent

The End

Thank you for your attention!


The following slides contain anticipated questions (AQ).

AQ: not yet

Speaker's notes


Disclaimer and Acknowledgments

Keyboard Controls

The following apply in any supporting browser besides Opera, which uses the default Opera Show controls instead.

Action Key(s)
Go to the next slide
  • [Space bar]
  • [Return]
  • [Enter]
  • [Right arrow]
  • [Down arrow]
  • [Page down]
  • Click the left mouse button outside of the control area, Flash object, or movie
Go to the previous slide
  • [Left arrow]
  • [Up arrow]
  • [Page up]
Go to the title (first) slide [Home]
Go to the last slide [End]
Jump directly to a slide Type the slide number, then hit [Return] or [Enter]
Skip forward n slides Type the number of slides to skip, then hit any "go to next" key (except [Return] or [Enter])
Skip backward n slides Type the number of slides to skip, then hit any "go to previous" key
Switch between slideshow and outline view
  • [T]
  • Click the ø button
Show/hide slide controls
  • [C]
  • Move the mouse pointer over the control area

Further details of the S5 user interface can be found at Eric Meyer's S5 page and the s5project site.


[CleeremansFrench1996]Cleeremans A., French R.M.: From Chicken Squawking To Cognition: Levels of Description and the Computational Approach in Psychology, Psychologica Belgica, 36(1-2):5-29, 1996.