An axiomatic approach for persuasion dialogs

International audienceSeveral systems were developed for supporting public persuasion dialogs where two agents with conflicting opinions try to convince an audience. For computing the outcomes of dialogs, these systems use (abstract or structured) argumentation systems that were initially developed for nonmonotonic reasoning. Despite the increasing number of such systems, there are almost no work on high level properties they should satisfy. This paper is a first attempt for defining postulates that guide the well-definition of dialog systems and that allow their comparison. We propose six basic postulates (including e.g. the finiteness of generated dialogs). We then show that this set of postulates is incompatible with those proposed for argumentation systems devoted for nonmonotonic reasoning. This incompatibility confirms the differences between persuading and reasoning. It also suggests that reasoning systems are not suitable for computing the outcomes of dialogs

A Mathematical Model of Dialog

AbstractComputer Science is currently undergoing a paradigm shift, from viewing computer systems as isolated programs to viewing them as dynamic multi-agent societies. Evidence of this shift is the significant effort devoted recently to the design and implementation of languages and protocols for communications and interaction between software agents. Despite this effort, no formal mathematical theory of agent interaction languages and protocols yet exists. We argue that such a theory needs to account for the semantics of agent interaction, and propose the first mathematical theory which does this. Our framework incorporates category-theoretic entities for the utterances made in an agent dialog and for the commitments incurred by those utterances, together with maps between these

Adversarial Language Games for Advanced Natural Language Intelligence

We study the problem of adversarial language games, in which multiple agents with conflicting goals compete with each other via natural language interactions. While adversarial language games are ubiquitous in human activities, little attention has been devoted to this field in natural language processing. In this work, we propose a challenging adversarial language game called Adversarial Taboo as an example, in which an attacker and a defender compete around a target word. The attacker is tasked with inducing the defender to utter the target word invisible to the defender, while the defender is tasked with detecting the target word before being induced by the attacker. In Adversarial Taboo, a successful attacker must hide its intention and subtly induce the defender, while a competitive defender must be cautious with its utterances and infer the intention of the attacker. Such language abilities can facilitate many important downstream NLP tasks. To instantiate the game, we create a game environment and a competition platform. Comprehensive experiments and empirical studies on several baseline attack and defense strategies show promising and interesting results. Based on the analysis on the game and experiments, we discuss multiple promising directions for future research.Comment: Accepted by AAAI 202

The Invocation of \u3cem\u3eClouds\u3c/em\u3e in Plato\u27s \u3cem\u3eApology\u3c/em\u3e

When reading the enormous collection of writings on Socrates, one is apt to respond as Strepsiades did to his son\u27s defense of mother-beating. Every point seems to follow logically from the last, and the finished argument apparently stands firmly upon the given evidence - yet, like Strepsiades, we have the visceral feeling that something is seriously amiss. In the same way, modern readers meet with vastly conflicting appraisals of Socrates and his philosophy, all of which claim to approach the historical truth most closely. Any treatment of Socrates must address, at least in passing, the hurtles which a lacunose historical record sets before potential commentators. Socrates has never been easy to understand. To non-specialists, he is a stereotypical Greek philosopher, immortalized for his eponymous teaching method. One of the few certainties about his career was his fixation upon questioning anyone and everyone. What is known today as the Socratic method, however, bears little resemblance to Socrates\u27 style of debating. Socrates did not trade in questions and answers, as the modern practitioner of the Socratic method does. He asked questions which he could not answer, he would respond to his interlocutors with puzzling irony, and most vexing of all, he frequently denied possession of any knowledge at all. In a way, Socrates should be the last person associated with the now traditional question-answer script

Gamification Strategies : A Characterization Using Formal Argumentation Theory

Gamified software applications are omnipresent in everyday life. The idea of using game design elements in non-game contexts to engage and motivate tasks has rapidly gained traction in the human–computer interaction and the psychology fields, but scarcely in the artificial intelligence (AI) research area. In this paper, we propose a software agent perspective of gamification elements to solve two specific problems: (1) a reactive perspective that gamification designers have for those gamified affordances, i.e. the visual cue (output) is only triggered by user interaction, and (2) a lack of formal treatment of gamified software, where strict characterization of software behavior as done in AI, guarantee that the information-based output follows the intended goal of the software. Our contributions presented in this paper are (1) two taxonomies of affordances based on the type of information that every element communicates, and the type of agency that is capable; (2) a framework to formalize the decision-making process for gamified software agents; and (3) a characterization of gamified stories using formal argumentation theory dialogues. We exemplify our contributions with two gamified platforms in the healthcare and financial literacy fields.© The Author(s) 2022. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.fi=vertaisarvioitu|en=peerReviewed

Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems

International audienceLogic-based argumentation systems are developed for reasoning with inconsistent information. Starting from a knowledge base encoded in a logical language, they define arguments and attacks between them using the consequence operator associated with the language. Finally, a semantics is used for evaluating the arguments. In this paper, we focus on systems that are based on deductive logics and that use Dung's semantics. We investigate rationality postulates that such systems should satisfy. We define five intuitive postulates: consistency and closure under the consequence operator of the underlying logic of the set of conclusions of arguments of each extension, closure under sub-arguments and exhaustiveness of the extensions, and a free precedence postulate ensuring that the free formulas of the knowledge base (i.e., the ones that are not involved in inconsistency) are conclusions of arguments in every extension. We study the links between the postulates and explore conditions under which they are guaranteed or violated

ProCLAIM: an argument-based model for deliberating over safety critical actions

In this Thesis we present an argument-based model – ProCLAIM – intended to provide a setting for heterogeneous agents to deliberate on whether a proposed action is safe. That is, whether or not a proposed action is expected to cause some undesirable side effect that will justify not to undertake the proposed action. This is particularly relevant in safetycritical environments where the consequences ensuing from an inappropriate action may be catastrophic. For the practical realisation of the deliberations the model features a mediator agent with three main tasks: 1) guide the participating agents in what their valid argumentation moves are at each stage of the deliberation; 2) decide whether submitted arguments should be accepted on the basis of their relevance; and finally, 3) evaluate the accepted arguments in order to provide an assessment on whether the proposed action should or should not be undertaken, where the argument evaluation is based on domain consented knowledge (e.g guidelines and regulations), evidence and the decision makers’ expertise. To motivate ProCLAIM’s practical value and generality the model is applied in two scenarios: human organ transplantation and industrial wastewater. In the former scenario, ProCLAIM is used to facilitate the deliberation between two medical doctors on whether an available organ for transplantation is or is not suitable for a particular potential recipient (i.e. whether it is safe to transplant the organ). In the later scenario, a number of agents deliberate on whether an industrial discharge is environmentally safe.En esta tesis se presenta un modelo basado en la Argumentación –ProCLAIM– cuyo n es proporcionar un entorno para la deliberación sobre acciones críticas para la seguridad entre agentes heterogéneos. En particular, el propósito de la deliberación es decidir si los efectos secundario indeseables de una acción justi can no llevarla a cabo. Esto es particularmente relevante en entornos críticos para la seguridad, donde las consecuencias que se derivan de una acción inadecuada puede ser catastró cas. Para la realización práctica de las deliberaciones propuestas, el modelo cuenta con un agente mediador con tres tareas principales: 1) guiar a los agentes participantes indicando cuales son las líneas argumentación válidas en cada etapa de la deliberación; 2) decidir si los argumentos presentados deben ser aceptadas sobre la base de su relevancia y, por último, 3) evaluar los argumentos aceptados con el n de proporcionar una valoración sobre la seguridad de la acción propuesta. Esta valoración se basa en guías y regulaciones del dominio de aplicación, en evidencia y en la opinión de los expertos responsables de la decisión. Para motivar el valor práctico y la generalidad de ProCLAIM, este modelo se aplica en dos escenarios distintos: el trasplante de órganos y la gestión de aguas residuales. En el primer escenario el modelo se utiliza para facilitar la deliberación entre dos médicos sobre la viabilidad del transplante de un órgano para un receptor potencial (es decir, si el transplante es seguro). En el segundo escenario varios agentes deliberan sobre si los efectos de un vertido industrial con el propósito de minimizar su impacto medioambiental

Social Media and the Mediating Role of Perceived Authenticity in Covert Celebrity Endorsement: Influencing Factors

This thesis analyses the factors that influence the celebrity endorser’s perceived authenticity and its impact on the promoted brand in covert social media marketing. To examine consumer behaviour, the Persuasion Knowledge Model and Attribution Theory were integrated, and a theoretical framework was then developed. In total, 653 social media users were recruited to participate in the research, and structural equation modelling was conducted to test the proposed model. The results confirm that (1) activated persuasion knowledge negatively influences celebrity endorser’s perceived authenticity in covert social media marketing; (2) celebrity-brand congruity does not have a significant impact on the endorser’s perceived authenticity; (3) celebrity’s expertise positively influences the celebrity endorser’s perceived authenticity when endorsing products related to his or her area of expertise; (4) the celebrity’s perceived attractiveness has a positive impact on the celebrity’s perceived authenticity when endorsing attractiveness enhancing products covertly in social media; and (5) perceived authenticity of a celebrity endorser positively influences brand attitudes and, consequently, behavioural intentions. Both theoretical and managerial implications are drawn, suggesting directions for future studies