Computationally viable handling of beliefs in arguments for persuasion

Computational models of argument are being developed to capture aspects of how persuasion is undertaken. Recent proposals suggest that in a persuasion dialogue between some agents, it is valuable for each agent to model how arguments are believed by the other agents. Beliefs in arguments can be captured by a joint belief distribution over the arguments and updated as the dialogue progresses. This information can be used by the agent to make more intelligent choices of move in the dialogue. Whilst these proposals indicate the value of modelling the beliefs of other agents, there is a question of the computational viability of using a belief distribution over all the arguments. We address this problem in this paper by presenting how probabilistic independence can be leveraged to split this joint distribution into an equivalent set of distributions of smaller size. Experiments show that updating the belief on the split distribution is more efficient than performing updates on the joint distribution

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

Updating probabilistic epistemic states in persuasion dialogues

In persuasion dialogues, the ability of the persuader to model the persuadee allows the persuader to make better choices of move. The epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation is a promising way of modelling the persuadee’s belief in arguments, and proposals have been made for update methods that specify how these beliefs can be updated at each step of the dialogue. However, there is a need to better understand these proposals, and moreover, to gain insights into the space of possible update functions. So in this paper, we present a general framework for update functions in which we consider existing and novel update functions

Towards Computational Persuasion via Natural Language Argumentation Dialogues

Computational persuasion aims to capture the human ability to persuade through argumentation for applications such as behaviour change in healthcare (e.g. persuading people to take more exercise or eat more healthily). In this paper, we review research in computational persuasion that incorporates domain modelling (capturing arguments and counterarguments that can appear in a persuasion dialogues), user modelling (capturing the beliefs and concerns of the persuadee), and dialogue strategies (choosing the best moves for the persuader to maximize the chances that the persuadee is persuaded). We discuss evaluation of prototype systems that get the user’s counterarguments by allowing them to select them from a menu. Then we consider how this work might be enhanced by incorporating a natural language interface in the form of an argumentative chatbot

Analysis of Dialogical Argumentation via Finite State Machines

Dialogical argumentation is an important cognitive activity by which agents exchange arguments and counterarguments as part of some process such as discussion, debate, persuasion and negotiation. Whilst numerous formal systems have been proposed, there is a lack of frameworks for implementing and evaluating these proposals. First-order executable logic has been proposed as a general framework for specifying and analysing dialogical argumentation. In this paper, we investigate how we can implement systems for dialogical argumentation using propositional executable logic. Our approach is to present and evaluate an algorithm that generates a finite state machine that reflects a propositional executable logic specification for a dialogical argumentation together with an initial state. We also consider how the finite state machines can be analysed, with the minimax strategy being used as an illustration of the kinds of empirical analysis that can be undertaken.Comment: 10 page

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

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

Empirical methods for modelling persuadees in dialogical argumentation

For a participant to play persuasive arguments in a dialogue, s/he may create a model of the other participants. This may include an estimation of what arguments the other participants find believable, convincing, or appealing. The participant can then choose to put forward those arguments that have high scores in the desired criteria. In this paper, we consider how we can crowd-source opinions on the believability, convincingness, and appeal of arguments, and how we can use this information to predict opinions for specific participants on the believability, convincingness, and appeal of specific arguments. We evaluate our approach by crowd-sourcing opinions from 50 participants about 30 arguments. We also discuss how this form of user modelling can be used in a decision-theoretic approach to choosing moves in dialogical argumentation

Empirical Methods for Modelling Persuadees in Dialogical Argumentation

For a participant to play persuasive arguments in a dialogue, s/he may create a model of the other participants. This may include an estimation of what arguments the other participants find believable, convincing, or appealing. The participant can then choose to put forward those arguments that have high scores in the desired criteria. In this paper, we consider how we can crowd-source opinions on the believability, convincingness, and appeal of arguments, and how we can use this information to predict opinions for specific participants on the believability, convincingness, and appeal of specific arguments. We evaluate our approach by crowd-sourcing opinions from 50 participants about 30 arguments. We also discuss how this form of user modelling can be used in a decision-theoretic approach to choosing moves in dialogical argumentation