Creating Dialogues Using Argumentation and Social Practices

  • Frank DignumEmail author
  • Floris Bex
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10750)


Research in chatbots is already more than fifty years old, starting with the famous Eliza example. Although current chatbots might perform better, overall, than Eliza the basic principles used have not evolved that much. Recent advances are made through the use of massive learning on huge amounts of resources available through Internet dialogues. However, in most domains these huge corpora are not available. Another limitation is that most research is done on chatbots that are used for focused task driven dialogues. This context gives a natural focus for the dialogue and facilitates the use of simple reactive rules or frame-based approaches. In this paper, we argue that if chatbots are used in more general domains we have to make use of different types of knowledge to successfully guide the chatbot through the dialogue. We propose the use of argumentation theory and social practices as two general applicable sources of knowledge to guide conversations.


  1. 1.
    Augello, A., Gentile, M., Dignum, F.: Social practices for social driven conversations in serious games. In: de De Gloria, A., Veltkamp, R. (eds.) GALA 2015. LNCS, vol. 9599, pp. 100–110. Springer, Cham (2016). Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Augello, A., Gentile, M., Weideveld, L., Dignum, F.: A model of a social chatbot. In: De Pietro, G., Gallo, L., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) Intelligent Interactive Multimedia Systems and Services 2016. SIST, vol. 55, pp. 637–647. Springer, Cham (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bex, F., Modgil, S., Prakken, H., Reed, C.: On logical specifications of the argument interchange format. J. Logic Comput. 23(5), 951–989 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bex, F., Peters, J., Testerink, B.: A.I. for online criminal complaints: from natural dialogues to structured scenarios. In: A.I. for Justice workshop (ECAI 2016) (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bex, F., Reed, C.: Dialogue templates for automatic argument processing. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2012, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 245, pp. 366–377 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chesñevar, C., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S.: Towards an argument interchange format. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(04), 293–316 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark, H.H.: Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dignum, V.: A model for organizational interaction: based on agents, founded in logic. SIKS Dissertation Series 2004–1. Utrecht University, Ph.D. thesis (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif. Intell. 171(10), 875–896 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holtz, G.: JASSS. Generating social practices 17(1), 17 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jeuring, J., et al.: Communicate!—a serious game for communication skills—. In: Conole, G., Klobučar, T., Rensing, C., Konert, J., Lavoué, É. (eds.) EC-TEL 2015. LNCS, vol. 9307, pp. 513–517. Springer, Cham (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marietto, M.D.G.B., de Aguiar, R.V., Barbosa, G.D.O., Botelho, W.T., Pimentel, E., Frana, R.D.S., da Silva, V.L.: Artificial intelligence markup language: a brief tutorial. arXiv preprint (2013). arXiv:1307.3091
  13. 13.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Dialogue games for agent argumentation. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 261–280. Springer, Boston (2009). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ortony, A., Clore, G.L., Collins, A.: The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J. Logic Comput. 15(6), 1009–1040 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reckwitz, A.: Toward a theory of social practices. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 5(2), 243–263 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shove, E., Pantzar, M., Watson, M.: The Dynamics of Social Practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Snaith, M., Reed, C.: TOAST: online ASPIC\({}^{\text{+}}\) implementation. In: Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2012, Vienna, Austria, 10–12 September 2012, pp. 509–510 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Weide, T.: Arguing to motivate decisions. Utrecht University, Ph.D. thesis (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations