Abstract
We present an empirical simulation-based study of the use of value-based argumentation in two-party deliberation dialogues, investigating the impact that argumentation can have on the quality of the outcome reached. Our simulation allows us to vary the number of values, actions and arguments that appear in the system; we investigate how the behaviour of the system changes as these parameters vary. This parameter sensitivity analysis tells us whether a value-based deliberation dialogue system may be useful for a particular real-world application. We measure the quality of the dialogue outcome (i.e. the action that the agents agree to) against a global view of whether that action would be agreeable to each agent if all of the agents’ knowledge were taken into account. We compare the deliberation outcome with a simple consensus forming procedure (where no arguments are exchanged). Our results show that the deliberation dialogue system we present outperforms consensus forming.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Karunatillake, N.C., Jennings, N.R., Rahwan, I., McBurney, P.: Dialogue games that agents play within a society. Artificial Intelligence 173(9-10), 935–981 (2009)
Pasquier, P., Hollands, R., Rahwan, I., Dignum, F., Sonenberg, L.: An empirical study of interest-based negotiation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 22(2), 249–288 (2011)
Jung, H., Tambe, M.: Towards argumentation as distributed constraint satisfaction. In: Proc. of AAAI Fall Symposium on Negotiation Methods for Autonomous Cooperative Systems (2001)
Black, E., Atkinson, K.: Choosing persuasive arguments for action. In: Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 905–912 (2011)
Walton, D.N.: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15), 855–874 (2007)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties without a consensus about values. Informal Logic 22(3), 231–245 (2002)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., Lang, J., Maudet, N.: A Short Introduction to Computational Social Choice. In: van Leeuwen, J., Italiano, G.F., van der Hoek, W., Meinel, C., Sack, H., Plášil, F. (eds.) SOFSEM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4362, pp. 51–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Black, E., Bentley, K. (2012). An Empirical Study of a Deliberation Dialogue System. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds) Theorie and Applications of Formal Argumentation. TAFA 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7132. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-29183-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-29184-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)