Supply centers

[saramosher888]

I've been seeing occasional messages about losing or gaining supply centers. Currently I don't think we have a way to annotate this. Is this something we want to pay attention to, or should we continue leaving it out?

Examples:

• "The convoy makes me a bit nervous because if France goes to IRI, they'll get a home supply center in the fall."
• "If I lose the channel, it won't be for very long, but if I lose a supply center it will be very annoying."
• "I'm not so sure you should read that seizing of Trieste as an act of war; Italy did help Austria take two supply centers this turn. Austria might have given it willingly."
• "Austria can't build. All of its home supply centers are occupied."

[ezubaric]

Argument in favor of including it: It's commonly talked about, and it's a common / useful reason to do something (to deny a SC or to get one for somebody). It's part of our agent's reward function, so if we want it to be able to talk about its goals, we need to be able to talk about it.

Argument against: Doesn't have a direct DAIDE analog.

I think on balance, i'd be in favor of annotating it because it should be relatively simple.

[saramosher888]

Argument against: We've already done almost 1500 messages without annotating anything about supply centers, so then someone would have to go back through all those and add this in. I don't think it has come up all that many times, but we didn't keep a list so we'd have to hunt for them.

(I'm not taking any particular position here, just listing pros and cons.)

[jkkummerfeld]

I favour annotating it. The importance to the game is a major value point.

[uhermjakob]

I'm also in favor of annotating supply centers. You can use the AMR Editor search function to find instances of "supply" or "center" (quite a few).

In order to use supply centers effectively, we most likely then also would have to add "gain-02" and "lose-02" (specifically in the context of supply centers). The natural way to annotate a supply center would be something like:

(g / gain-02
      :ARG0 (c / country :name (n / name :op1 "France"))
      :ARG1 (s / supply-center :quant 2))

Then there are home supply centers which are supply centers where units can be built. Maybe (s / supply-center :mod home).

[jkkummerfeld]

Sounds good!

[saramosher888]

This raises another question in regards to have-03. Can have-03 be used to mean gain or lose? We have been using it already for sentences like "France is going to take BEL next turn" and "You might lose Munich this year" (polarity-). If we add gain and lose as concepts, then it would make sense to use them for this purpose too.

[jkkummerfeld]

I agree, that would be more consistent (and is worth the work of tracking down those earlier annotations).

[saramosher888]

Then are we in agreement that it's worthwhile to add gain and lose as concepts, and it's worth taking the time to go back and add them to earlier annotations? Ulf, what do you think? @uhermjakob

[jkkummerfeld]

Checking in on this (@uhermjakob and @saramosher888)

[uhermjakob]

OK, I updated the guidelines to include gain-02 and lose-02 (for supply centers):

• https://www.isi.edu/~ulf/amr/lib/amr-dict-diplomacy.html#gain-02
• https://www.isi.edu/~ulf/amr/lib/amr-dict-diplomacy.html#lose-02

  ::slot-restriction gain-02 :ARG0 country|amr-unknown ::slot-restriction gain-02 :ARG1 supply-center ::slot-restriction lose-02 :ARG0 country|amr-unknown ::slot-restriction lose-02 :ARG1 supply-center

[uhermjakob]

Should the :ARG1 of gain-02/lose-02 also be allowed to be a specific province, e.g. Belgium?

[saramosher888]

Yes, this is something I would also like to clarify. I've been experimenting with gain-02 and lose-02 the last few days, and it's fairly common for that situation to come up (where adding a specific province or territory to :arg1 would be useful).

[jkkummerfeld]

Agreed

[uhermjakob]

OK, the :ARG1 of gain-02/lose-02 can now also a specific province, e.g. Belgium.

[saramosher888]

Thank you!

[saramosher888]

FYI: Gain-02 and lose-02 are still showing as errors if I put a province in :arg1.

[uhermjakob]

Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed.

[saramosher888]

It looks like it's working now. Thank you!

[jkkummerfeld]

When used for gaining and losing is there some sort of indication that it is in the future? And how do you distinguish ‘keep’ / ‘retain’ from ‘gain’?

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 12:36 PM saramosher888 @.***> wrote:

This raises another question in regards to have-03. Can have-03 be used to mean gain or lose? We have been using it already for sentences like "France is going to take BEL next turn."

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/isi-nlp/DiplomacyAMR/issues/25#issuecomment-1165742930, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJ45BH6UZ6PTXUAEVW6KBTVQXPXLANCNFSM5ZNCBVVA . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

-- Visiting Scholar, Harvard University Research Associate II, University of Michigan Honorary Senior Lecturer, University of Sydney

Mid-2022: Senior Lecturer (ie. research tenure-track Asst. Prof.) U. Sydney

e: @.*** w: www.jkk.name