Pareto Optimality and Strategy Proofness in Group Argument Evaluation (Extended Version)

An inconsistent knowledge base can be abstracted as a set of arguments and a defeat relation among them. There can be more than one consistent way to evaluate such an argumentation graph. Collective argument evaluation is the problem of aggregating the opinions of multiple agents on how a given set of arguments should be evaluated. It is crucial not only to ensure that the outcome is logically consistent, but also satisfies measures of social optimality and immunity to strategic manipulation. This is because agents have their individual preferences about what the outcome ought to be. In the current paper, we analyze three previously introduced argument-based aggregation operators with respect to Pareto optimality and strategy proofness under different general classes of agent preferences. We highlight fundamental trade-offs between strategic manipulability and social optimality on one hand, and classical logical criteria on the other. Our results motivate further investigation into the relationship between social choice and argumentation theory. The results are also relevant for choosing an appropriate aggregation operator given the criteria that are considered more important, as well as the nature of agents' preferences

Towards a framework for computational persuasion with applications in behaviour change

Persuasion is an activity that involves one party trying to induce another party to believe something or to do something. It is an important and multifaceted human facility. Obviously, sales and marketing is heavily dependent on persuasion. But many other activities involve persuasion such as a doctor persuading a patient to drink less alcohol, a road safety expert persuading drivers to not text while driving, or an online safety expert persuading users of social media sites to not reveal too much personal information online. As computing becomes involved in every sphere of life, so too is persuasion a target for applying computer-based solutions. An automated persuasion system (APS) is a system that can engage in a dialogue with a user (the persuadee) in order to persuade the persuadee to do (or not do) some action or to believe (or not believe) something. To do this, an APS aims to use convincing arguments in order to persuade the persuadee. Computational persuasion is the study of formal models of dialogues involving arguments and counterarguments, of user models, and strategies, for APSs. A promising application area for computational persuasion is in behaviour change. Within healthcare organizations, government agencies, and non-governmental agencies, there is much interest in changing behaviour of particular groups of people away from actions that are harmful to themselves and/or to others around them

Case-Based strategies for argumentation dialogues in agent societies

[EN] In multi-agent systems, agents perform complex tasks that require different levels of intelligence and give rise to interactions among them. From these interactions, conflicts of opinion can arise, especially when these systems become open, with heterogeneous agents dynamically entering or leaving the system. Therefore, agents willing to participate in this type of system will be required to include extra capabilities to explicitly represent and generate agreements on top of the simpler ability to interact. Furthermore, agents in multiagent systems can form societies, which impose social dependencies on them. These dependencies have a decisive influence in the way agents interact and reach agreements. Argumentation provides a natural means of dealing with conflicts of interest and opinion. Agents can reach agreements by engaging in argumentation dialogues with their opponents in a discussion. In addition, agents can take advantage of previous argumentation experiences to follow dialogue strategies and persuade other agents to accept their opinions. Our insight is that case-based reasoning can be very useful to manage argumentation in open multi-agent systems and devise dialogue strategies based on previous argumentation experiences. To demonstrate the foundations of this suggestion, this paper presents the work that we have done to develop case-based dialogue strategies in agent societies. Thus, we propose a case-based argumentation framework for agent societies and define heuristic dialogue strategies based on it. The framework has been implemented and evaluated in a real customer support application.This work is supported by the Spanish Government Grants [CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, and TIN2012-36586-C03-01] and by the GVA project [PROMETEO 2008/051].Heras Barberá, SM.; Jordan Prunera, JM.; Botti, V.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2013). Case-Based strategies for argumentation dialogues in agent societies. Information Sciences. 223:1-30. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2012.10.007S13022

Strategic argumentation dialogues for persuasion: Framework and experiments based on modelling the beliefs and concerns of the persuadee

Persuasion is an important and yet complex aspect of human intelligence. When undertaken through dialogue, the deployment of good arguments, and therefore counterarguments, clearly has a significant effect on the ability to be successful in persuasion. Two key dimensions for determining whether an argument is 'good' in a particular dialogue are the degree to which the intended audience believes the argument and counterarguments, and the impact that the argument has on the concerns of the intended audience. In this paper, we present a framework for modelling persuadees in terms of their beliefs and concerns, and for harnessing these models in optimizing the choice of move in persuasion dialogues. Our approach is based on the Monte Carlo Tree Search which allows optimization in real-time. We provide empirical results of a study with human participants that compares an automated persuasion system based on this technology with a baseline system that does not take the beliefs and concerns into account in its strategy

Strategic Argumentation Dialogues for Persuasion: Framework and Experiments Based on Modelling the Beliefs and Concerns of the Persuadee

Persuasion is an important and yet complex aspect of human intelligence. When undertaken through dialogue, the deployment of good arguments, and therefore counterarguments, clearly has a significant effect on the ability to be successful in persuasion. Two key dimensions for determining whether an argument is good in a particular dialogue are the degree to which the intended audience believes the argument and counterarguments, and the impact that the argument has on the concerns of the intended audience. In this paper, we present a framework for modelling persuadees in terms of their beliefs and concerns, and for harnessing these models in optimizing the choice of move in persuasion dialogues. Our approach is based on the Monte Carlo Tree Search which allows optimization in real-time. We provide empirical results of a study with human participants showing that our automated persuasion system based on this technology is superior to a baseline system that does not take the beliefs and concerns into account in its strategy.Comment: The Data Appendix containing the arguments, argument graphs, assignment of concerns to arguments, preferences over concerns, and assignment of beliefs to arguments, is available at the link http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/a.hunter/papers/unistudydata.zip The code is available at https://github.com/ComputationalPersuasion/MCC

Reinforcement Learning for Argumentation

Argumentation as a logical reasoning approach plays an important role in improving communication, increasing agree-ability, and resolving conflicts in multi-agent-systems (MAS). The present research aims to explore the effectiveness of argumentation in reinforcement learning of intelligent agents in terms of, outperforming baseline agents, learning transfer between argument graphs, and improving relevance and coherence of dialogue quality. This research developed `ARGUMENTO+' to encourage a reinforcement learning agent (RL agent) playing abstract argument game for improving performance against different baseline agents by using a newly proposed state representation in order to make each state unique. When attempting to generalise this approach to other argumentation graphs, the RL agent was not able to effectively identify the argument patterns that are transferable to other domains. In order to improve the effectiveness of the RL agent to recognise argument patterns, this research adopted a logic-based dialogue game approach with richer argument representations. In the DE dialogue game, the RL agent played against hard-coded heuristic agents and showed improved performance compared to the baseline agents by using a reward function that encourages the RL agent to win the game with minimum number of moves. This also allowed the RL agent to adopt its own strategy, make moves, and learn to argue. This thesis also presents a new reward function that makes the RL agent's dialogue more coherent and relevant than its opponents. The RL agent was designed to recognise argument patterns, i.e. argumentation schemes and evidence support sources, which can be related to different domains. The RL agent used a transfer learning method to generalise and transfer experiences and speed up learning