Abstract
In dialogical argumentation, a participant is often unsure what moves the other participant(s) might make. If the dialogue is proceeding according to some accepted protocol, then a participant might be able to determine what are the possible moves that the other might make, but the participant might be unsure as to which move will be chosen by the other agent. In this paper, propositional executable logic is augmented with probabilities that reflect the probability that any given move will be chosen by the agent. This provides a simple and lucid language that can be executed to generate a dialogue. Furthermore, a set of such rules for each agent can be represented by a probabilistic finite state machine (PFSM). For modelling dialogical argumentation, a PFSM can be used by one agent to model how the other agent may react to any dialogical move. An agent can then analyze the PFSM to determine the most likely outcomes of a dialogue given any choices it makes. This can be used by the agent to determine its choice of moves in order to optimize its outcomes from the dialogue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Arguments, dialogue and negotiation. In: European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2000), pp. 338–342. IOS Press (2000)
Black, E., Hunter, A.: An inquiry dialogue system. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 19(2), 173–209 (2009)
Dignum, F., Dunin-Keplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Dialogue in team formation. In: Dignum, F.P.M., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication. LNCS, vol. 1916, pp. 264–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Fan, X., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation dialogues. In: Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), pp. 198–203 (2011)
Hamblin, C.: Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37, 567–583 (1971)
Mackenzie, J.: Question begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 117–133 (1979)
McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11, 315–334 (2002)
McBurney, P., van Eijk, R., Parsons, S., Amgoud, L.: A dialogue-game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 7, 235–273 (2003)
Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. J. of Logic and Comp. 13(3), 347–376 (2003)
Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J. of Logic and Comp. 15(6), 1009–1040 (2005)
Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press (1995)
Black, E., Hunter, A.: Executable logic for dialogical argumentation. In: European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2012), pp. 15–20. IOS Press (2012)
Hunter, A.: Analysis of dialogical argumentation via finite state machines. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8078, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Wooldridge, M., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: On the meta-logic of arguments. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4049, pp. 42–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)
Rabin, M.: Probabilistic automata. Information and Control 6, 230–245 (1963)
Maudet, N., Evrard, F.: A generic framework for dialogue game implementation. In: Proc. 2nd Workshop on Formal Semantics & Pragmatics of Dialogue, University of Twente, pp. 185–198 (1998)
Brewka, G.: Dynamic argument systems: A formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. J. Logic & Comp. 11(2), 257–282 (2001)
Hunter, A.: Modelling uncertainty in persuasion. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8078, pp. 57–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Rienstra, T., Thimm, M., Oren, N.: Opponent models with uncertainty for strategic argumentation. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2013. IJCAI/AAAI (2013)
Hadjinikolis, C., Siantos, Y., Modgil, S., Black, E., McBurney, P.: Opponent modelling in persuasion dialogues. In: Proceedings of IJCAI (2013)
Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2008). AAAI Press (2008)
Riveret, R., Prakken, H., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Heuristics in argumentation: A game theory investigation. In: Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 172, pp. 324–335. IOS Press (2008)
Matt, P., Toni, F.: A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation. In: Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.) JELIA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5293, pp. 285–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Oren, N., Norman, T.: Arguing using opponent models. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6057, pp. 160–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Hunter, A. (2014). Probabilistic Strategies in Dialogical Argumentation. In: Straccia, U., Calì, A. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8720. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11508-5_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11508-5_16
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11507-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11508-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)