Arguing and negotiating in the presence of social influences

Postprin

Strategic Argumentation is NP-Complete

In this paper we study the complexity of strategic argumentation for dialogue games. A dialogue game is a 2-player game where the parties play arguments. We show how to model dialogue games in a skeptical, non-monotonic formalism, and we show that the problem of deciding what move (set of rules) to play at each turn is an NP-complete problem

Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: NL

Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: N

A Plan-Based Model for Response Generation in Collaborative Task-Oriented Dialogues

This paper presents a plan-based architecture for response generation in collaborative consultation dialogues, with emphasis on cases in which the system (consultant) and user (executing agent) disagree. Our work contributes to an overall system for collaborative problem-solving by providing a plan-based framework that captures the {\em Propose-Evaluate-Modify} cycle of collaboration, and by allowing the system to initiate subdialogues to negotiate proposed additions to the shared plan and to provide support for its claims. In addition, our system handles in a unified manner the negotiation of proposed domain actions, proposed problem-solving actions, and beliefs proposed by discourse actions. Furthermore, it captures cooperative responses within the collaborative framework and accounts for why questions are sometimes never answered.Comment: 8 pages, to appear in the Proceedings of AAAI-94. LaTeX source file, requires aaai.sty and epsf.tex. Figures included in separate file

Empirical Evaluation of Abstract Argumentation: Supporting the Need for Bipolar and Probabilistic Approaches

In dialogical argumentation it is often assumed that the involved parties always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other, realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views when new and correct information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is sufficient to represent their opinions. Although it is natural to make these assumptions as a starting point for further research, removing them or even acknowledging that such removal should happen is more challenging for some of these concepts than for others. Probabilistic argumentation is one of the approaches that can be harnessed for more accurate user modelling. The epistemic approach allows us to represent how much a given argument is believed by a given person, offering us the possibility to express more than just three agreement states. It is equipped with a wide range of postulates, including those that do not make any restrictions concerning how initial arguments should be viewed, thus potentially being more adequate for handling beliefs of the people that have not fully disclosed their opinions in comparison to Dung's semantics. The constellation approach can be used to represent the views of different people concerning the structure of the framework we are dealing with, including cases in which not all relations are acknowledged or when they are seen differently than intended. Finally, bipolar argumentation frameworks can be used to express both positive and negative relations between arguments. In this paper we describe the results of an experiment in which participants judged dialogues in terms of agreement and structure. We compare our findings with the aforementioned assumptions as well as with the constellation and epistemic approaches to probabilistic argumentation and bipolar argumentation

A structured argumentation framework for detaching conditional obligations

We present a general formal argumentation system for dealing with the detachment of conditional obligations. Given a set of facts, constraints, and conditional obligations, we answer the question whether an unconditional obligation is detachable by considering reasons for and against its detachment. For the evaluation of arguments in favor of detaching obligations we use a Dung-style argumentation-theoretical semantics. We illustrate the modularity of the general framework by considering some extensions, and we compare the framework to some related approaches from the literature.Comment: This is our submission to DEON 2016, including the technical appendi

How to Deal with Unbelievable Assertions

We tackle the problem that arises when an agent receives unbelievable information. Information is unbelievable if it conflicts with the agent’s convictions, that is, what the agent considers knowledge. We propose two solutions based on modifying the information so that it is no longer unbelievable. In one solution, the source and the receiver of the information cooperatively resolve the conflict. For this purpose we introduce a dialogue protocol in which the receiver explains what is wrong with the information by using logical interpolation, and the source produces a new assertion accordingly. If such cooperation is not possible, we propose an alternative solution in which the receiver revises the new piece of information by its own convictions to make it acceptable.Peer reviewe