Skip to main content

Demonstrating the Distinctions Between Persuasion and Deliberation Dialogues

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Artificial Intelligence XXXVI (SGAI 2019)

Abstract

A successful dialogue requires that the participants have a shared understanding of what they are trying to achieve, individually and collectively. This coordination can be achieved if both recognise the type of dialogue in which they are engaged. We focus on two particular dialogue types, action persuasion and deliberation dialogues, which are often conflated because they share similar speech acts. Previously, a clear distinction was made between the two in terms of the different pre- and post-conditions used for the speech acts within these dialogues. This prior work gave formal specifications of the dialogue moves within the dialogues but offered no evaluation through implementation. In this paper, we present an implementation to demonstrate that the two dialogue types described in this way can be realised in software to support focussed communication between autonomous agents. We provide the design and implementation details of our new tool along with an evaluation of the software. The tool we have produced captures the distinctive features of each of the two dialogue types, to make plain their differences and to validate the speech acts for use in practical scenarios.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Further in this paper, we will focus on persuasion and deliberation about actions. Although [10] might seem to suggest that persuasion concerns only propositions and not actions, persuading people to do something is such an everyday occurrence that we may regard persuasion about action as a bona fide dialogue type.

  2. 2.

    See: github.com/yankirchev/diners-discourse.

References

  1. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., Walton, D.: Distinctive features of persuasion and deliberation dialogues. Argum. Comput. 4(2), 105–127 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bench-Capon, T., Atkinson, K., Wyner, A.: Using argumentation to structure e-participation in policy making. In: Hameurlain, A., Küng, J., Wagner, R., Decker, H., Lhotska, L., Link, S. (eds.) Transactions on Large-Scale Data- and Knowledge-Centered Systems XVIII. LNCS, vol. 8980, pp. 1–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46485-4_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Bench-Capon, T., Doutre, S., Dunne, P.E.: Asking the right question: forcing commitment in examination dialogues. In: Besnard, P., Doutre, S., Hunter, A. (eds.) Proceedings of COMMA 2008, vol. 172, pp. 49–60. IOS Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Black, E., Hunter, A.: An inquiry dialogue system. Auton. Agents Multi Agent Syst. 19(2), 173–209 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-008-9074-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chalaguine, L.A., Hamilton, F.L., Hunter, A., Potts, H.W.: Argument harvesting using chatbots. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2018, pp. 149–160. IOS Press (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Grice, H.P.: Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, pp. 41–58. Academic Press, New York (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Morgan, J., Paiement, A., Seisenberger, M., Williams, J., Wyner, A.: A chatbot framework for the children’s legal centre. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2018, pp. 205–209 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Olszewska, J.I., et al.: Robotic ontological standard development life cycle. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 2018: Workshop on Elderly Care Robotics: Technology and Ethics (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(2), 163–188 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, New York (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wardeh, M., Wyner, A., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.: Argumentation based tools for policy-making. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 249–250. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katie Atkinson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kirchev, Y., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. (2019). Demonstrating the Distinctions Between Persuasion and Deliberation Dialogues. In: Bramer, M., Petridis, M. (eds) Artificial Intelligence XXXVI. SGAI 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11927. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34885-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34885-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34884-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34885-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics