Advertisement

Handling Enthymemes in Time-Limited Persuasion Dialogs

  • Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6929)

Abstract

This paper is a first attempt to define a framework to handle enthymeme in a time-limited persuasion dialog. The notion of incomplete argument is explicited and a protocol is proposed to regulate the utterances of a persuasion dialog with respect to the three criteria of consistency, non-redundancy and listening. This protocol allows the use of enthymemes concerning the support or conclusion of the argument, enables the agent to retract or re-specify an argument. The system is illustrated on a small example and some of its properties are outlined.

Keywords

Common Knowledge Argumentation Scheme Logical Argument Commitment Store Dialog System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Dupin de Saint Cyr, F.: Towards ACL semantics based on commitments and penalties. In: European Conf. on Artif. Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 235–239. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Maudet, N.: Strategical considerations for argumentative agents (preliminary report). In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR), pp. 409–417 (2002), Special session on Argument, Dialogue, DecisionGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Proc. of the International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, Boston, MA, pp. 31–38 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Austin, J.: How to Do Things With Words, Cambridge (Mass.), 1962, 2nd edn. Harvard University Press, Paperback (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128(1-2), 203–235 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Black, E., Hunter, A.: Using enthymemes in an inquiry dialogue system. In: Proc of the 7th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiag. Syst. (AAMAS 2008), pp. 437–444 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunne, P., Bench-Capon, T.: Two party immediate response disputes: Properties and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence 149, 221–250 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F.: A first attempt to allow enthymemes in persuasion dialogs. In: DEXA International Workshop: Data, Logic and Inconsistency, DALI (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaudou, B., Herzig, A., Longin, D.: A Logical Framework for Grounding-based Dialogue Analysis. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 157(4), 117–137 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gordon, T.: The pleadings game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2, 239–292 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamblin, C.: Fallacies. Methuen, London (1970)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hunter, A.: Real arguments are approximate arguments. In: Proceedings of the 22nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2007), pp. 66–71. MIT Press, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Macagno, F., Walton, D.: Enthymemes, argumentation schemes, and topics. Logique et Analyse 205, 39–56 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paglieri, F.: No more charity, please! enthymematic parsimony and the pitfall of benevolence. In: Dissensus and the search for common ground: Proc. of OSSA 2007, pp. 1–26 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paglieri, F., Woods, J.: Enthymematic parsimony. Synthese 178, 461–501 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parsons, S., McBurney, P.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. J. of Logic, Language and Information 11(3), 315–334 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rotstein, N., Moguillansky, M., García, A., Simari, G.: A dynamic argumentation framework. In: COMMA, pp. 427–438 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schopenhauer, A.: The Art of Always Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Always_Being_Right, Orig. title: Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten (Transl. by T. Saunders in 1896)
  20. 20.
    Searle, J.: Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thielscher, M.: A general game description language for incomplete information games. In: Proceedings of AAAI, pp. 994–999 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thimm, M., Garcia, A., Kern-Isberner, G., Simari, G.: Using collaborations for distributed argumentation with defeasible logic programming. In: Proceedings of the 12th Int. Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2008), pp. 179–188 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Walton, D.: The three bases for the enthymeme: A dialogical theory. Journal of Applied Logic 6, 361–379 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walton, D., Reed, C.: Argumentation schemes and enthymemes. Synthese 145, 339–370 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr
    • 1
  1. 1.IRITToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations