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

Empirical Evaluation of Strategies for Multiparty Argumentative Debates

International audienceDebating agents have often different areas of expertise and conflicting opinions on the subjects under discussion. They are faced with the problem of deciding how to contribute to the current state of the debate in order to satisfy their personal goals. We focus on target sets, that specify minimal changes on the current state of the debate allowing agents to satisfy their goals, where changes are the addition and/or deletion of attacks among arguments. In this paper, we experimentally test a number of strategies based on target sets, and we evaluate them with respect to different criteria, as the length of the debate, the happiness of the agents, and the rationality of the result