Advertisement

Arguing from Similar Positions: An Empirical Analysis

  • Josh Murphy
  • Elizabeth Black
  • Michael Luck
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9524)

Abstract

Argument-based deliberation dialogues are an important mechanism in the study of agent coordination, allowing agents to exchange formal arguments to reach an agreement for action. Agents participating in a deliberation dialogue may begin the dialogue with very similar sets of arguments to one another, or they may start the dialogue with disjoint sets of arguments, or some middle ground. In this paper, we empirically investigate whether the similarity of agents’ arguments affects the dialogue outcome. Our results show that agents that have similar sets of initially known arguments are less likely to reach an agreement through dialogue than those that have dissimilar sets of initially known arguments.

References

  1. 1.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Dialogue games for agent argumentation. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 261–280. Springer, New Year (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rahwan, I.: Argumentation in multi-agent systems. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 11, 115–125 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Black, E., Bentley, K.: An empirical study of a deliberation dialogue system. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 132–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Black, E., Atkinson, K.: Choosing persuasive arguments for action. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 905–912 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walton, D.: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bench-Capon, T.: Agreeing to differ: modelling persuasive dialogue between parties without a consensus about values. Inf. Log. 22(3), 231–245 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.: Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 855–874 (2007)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kok, E., Meyer, J., Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Testing the benfits of structured argumentation in multi-agent deliberation dialogues. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1411–1412 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Toniolo, A., Norman, T., Sycara, K.: An empirical study of argumentation schemes for deliberative dialogue. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 756–761 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Medellin-Gasque, R., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: Strategies for question selection in argumentative dialogues about plans. Argument Comput. 4(2), 151–179 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reed, C.: Argument corpora. Technical report, University of Dundee Technical report (2013). www.arg.dundee.ac.uk/corpora
  13. 13.
    Cardie, C., Green, N., Gurevych, I., Hirst, G., Litman, D., Muresan, S., Petasis, G., Stede, M., Walker, M., Wiebe, J.: (organising committee). In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Argumentation Mining, Workshop at the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics - Human Language Technologies (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lippi, M., Torroni, P.: Context-independent claim detection for argument mining. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 185–191 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cabrio, E., Villata, S.: A natural language bipolar argumentation approach to support users in online debate interactions. Argument Comput. 4(3), 209–230 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walton, D., Toniolo, A., Norman, T.: Missing phases of deliberation dialogue for real applications. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. Springer (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations