Abstract
In persuasion dialogs, agents exchange arguments on a subject on which they disagree. Thus, each agent tries to persuade the others to change their minds. Several systems, grounded on argumentation theory, have been proposed in the literature for modeling persuasion dialogs. It is important to be able to analyze the quality of these dialogs. Hence, quality criteria have to be defined in order to perform this analysis.
This paper tackles this important problem and proposes one criterion that concerns the conciseness of a dialog. A dialog is concise if all its moves are relevant and useful in order to reach the same outcome as the original dialog. From a given persuasion dialog, in this paper we compute its corresponding “ideal” dialog. This ideal dialog is concise. A persuasion dialog is thus interesting if it is close to its ideal dialog.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Proc. of the International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, Boston, MA, pp. 31–38 (2000)
Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)
Dunne, P., Bench-Capon, T.: Two party immediate response disputes: Properties and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence 149, 221–250 (2003)
Gordon, T.F.: The pleadings game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2, 239–292 (1993)
Parsons, S., McBurney, P.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. J. of Logic, Language and Information 11(3), 315–334 (2002)
Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15, 1009–1040 (2005)
Zabala, S., Lara, I., Geffner, H.: Beliefs, reasons and moves in a model for argumentative dialogues. In: Proc. 25th Latino-American Conf. on Computer Science (1999)
Johnson, M., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: When are two protocols the same? In: Huget, M.-P. (ed.) Communication in Multiagent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2650, pp. 253–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Amgoud, L., Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F.: Measures for persuasion dialogs: a preliminary investigation. In: 2nd Int. Conf. on Computational Models of Argument, pp. 13–24 (2008)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–216 (2002)
Amgoud, L., Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F.: Extracting the core of a persuasion dialog to evaluate its quality. Technical Report IRIT/RR–2009-10–FR, Toulouse (2009), http://www.irit.fr/recherches/RPDMP/persos/Bannay/publis/ecsqaruwithproof.pdf
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence Journal 77, 321–357 (1995)
Torroni, P.: A study on the termination of negotiation dialogues. In: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 1223–1230. ACM, New York (2002)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Amgoud, L., de Saint-Cyr, F.D. (2009). Extracting the Core of a Persuasion Dialog to Evaluate Its Quality. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5590. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02906-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02906-6_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02905-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02906-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)