Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Persuasion Dialogues via Restricted Interfaces Using Probabilistic Argumentation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9858))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

For persuasion dialogues between a software system and user, a user should be able to present arguments. Unfortunately, this would involve natural language processing which is not viable for this task in the short-term. A compromise is to allow the system to present potential counterarguments to the user, and the user expresses his/her degree of belief in each of them. In this paper, we present a protocol for persuasion that supports this type of move, and show how the system can use the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation to model the user, and thereby optimize the choice of moves.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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

References

  1. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Vicig, P.: On rationality conditions for epistemic probabilities in abstract argumentation. In: Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2014), pp. 121–132 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Black, E., Coles, A., Bernardini, S.: Automated planning of simple persuasion dialogues. In: Bulling, N., van der Torre, L., Villata, S., Jamroga, W., Vasconcelos, W. (eds.) CLIMA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8624, pp. 87–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Black, E., Hunter, A.: Reasons and options for updating an opponent model in persuasion dialogues. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA 2015) (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Caminada, M., Podlaszewski, M.: Grounded semantics as persuasion dialogue. In: Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), pp. 478–485 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cerutti, F., Tintarev, N., Oren, N.: Formal arguments, preferences, and natural language interfaces to hhuman: an empirical evaluation. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2014, pp. 207–212 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Dung, P., Thang, P.: Towards (probabilistic) argumentation for jury-based dispute resolution. In: Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010), pp. 171–182. IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fan, X., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation dialogues. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2011, pp. 198–203 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fan, X., Toni, F.: A general framework for sound assumption-based argumentation dialogues. Artif. Intell. 216, 20–54 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Hadjinikolis, C., Siantos, Y., Modgil, S., Black, E., McBurney, P.: Opponent modelling in persuasion dialogues. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2013, pp. 164–170 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hadoux, E., Beynier, A., Maudet, N., Weng, P., Hunter, A.: Optimization of probabilistic argumentation with Markov decision models. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2015 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hunter, A.: Some foundations for probabilistic argumentation. In: Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), pp. 117–128 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hunter, A.: A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 54(1), 47–81 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Hunter, A.: Opportunities for argument-centric persuasion in behaviour change. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8761, pp. 48–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hunter, A.: Probabilistic strategies in dialogical argumentation. In: Straccia, U., Calì, A. (eds.) SUM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8720, pp. 190–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hunter, A.: Modelling the persuadee in asymmetric argumentation dialogues for persuasion. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2015 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hunter, A., Thimm, M.: Probabilistic argumentation with incomplete information. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2014, pp. 1033–1034 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kontarinis, D., Bonzon, E., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P.: Empirical evaluation of strategies for multiparty argumentative debates. In: Bulling, N., van der Torre, L., Villata, S., Jamroga, W., Vasconcelos, W. (eds.) CLIMA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8624, pp. 105–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Li, H., Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Probabilistic argumentation frameworks. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Likert, R.: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 140, 1–55 (1932)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J. Logic Comput. 15(6), 1009–1040 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rienstra, T., Thimm, M., Oren, N.: Opponent models with uncertainty for strategic argumentation. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2013, pp. 332–338 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rosenfeld, A., Kraus, S.: Providing arguments in discussions based on the prediction of human argumentative behavior. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2015 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Thimm, M.: A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2012, pp. 750–755 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Thimm, M.: Strategic argumentation in multi-agent systems. Kunstliche Intell. 28(3), 159–168 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partly funded by EPSRC grant EP/N008294/1 for the Framework for Computational Persuasion project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

    Anthony Hunter

Authors
  1. Anthony Hunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony Hunter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiff University , Cardiff, United Kingdom

    Steven Schockaert

  2. Télécom ParisTech , Paris, Paris, France

    Pierre Senellart

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Hunter, A. (2016). Persuasion Dialogues via Restricted Interfaces Using Probabilistic Argumentation. In: Schockaert, S., Senellart, P. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9858. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45856-4_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45856-4_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45855-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45856-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation