Abstract
Dialogical argumentation allows agents to interact by constructing and evaluating arguments through a dialogue. Numerous proposals have been made for protocols for dialogical argumentation, and recently there is interest in develo** better strategies for agents to improve their own outcomes from the interaction by using an opponent model to guide their strategic choices. However, there is a lack of clear formal reasons for why or how such a model might be useful, or how it can be maintained. In this paper, we consider a simple type of persuasion dialogue, investigate options for using and updating an opponent model, and identify conditions under which such use of a model is beneficial.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Modgil, S., et al.: The added value of argumentation. In: Ossowski, S. (ed.) Agreement Technologies. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol. 8, pp. 357–403. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(02), 163–188 (2006)
Black, E., Atkinson, K.: Choosing persuasive arguments for action. In: 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 905–912 (2011)
Thimm, M.: Strategic argumentation in multi-agent systems. Künstliche Intelligenz, Spec. Issue Multi-Agent Decis. Making 28(3), 159–168 (2014)
Black, E., Coles, A., Bernardini, S.: Automated planning of simple persuasion dialogues. In: Bulling, N., van der Torre, L., Villata, S., Jamroga, W., Vasconcelos, W. (eds.) CLIMA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8624, pp. 87–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Rienstra, T., Thimm, M., Oren, N.: Opponent models with uncertainty for strategic argumentation. In: 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 332–338 (2013)
Had**ikolis, C., Siantos, Y., Modgil, S., Black, E., McBurney, P.: Opponent modelling in persuasion dialogues. In: 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 164–170 (2013)
Had**ikolis, C., Modgil, S., Black, E.: Building support-based opponent models in persuasion dialogues. In: Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation: Third International Workshop, TAFA 2015, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25–26 July 2015, Revised Selected papers. Springer LNAI 9524 (2016)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)
Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 195, 361–397 (2013)
Hunter, A.: Modelling the persuadee in asymmetric argumentation dialogues for persuasion. In: 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 3055–3061 (2015)
Hunter, A.: Probabilistic strategies in dialogical argumentation. In: Straccia, U., Calì, A. (eds.) SUM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8720, pp. 190–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Oren, N., Atkinson, K., Li, H.: Group persuasion through uncertain audience modelling. In: 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pp. 350–357 (2012)
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by the the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, grant ref. EP/M01892X/1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Black, E., Hunter, A. (2015). Reasons and Options for Updating an Opponent Model in Persuasion Dialogues. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds) Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation. TAFA 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9524. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28459-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28460-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)