Opponent Models with Uncertainty for Strategic Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
This paper deals with the issue of strategic argumentation in the setting of Dung-style abstract argumentation theory. Such reasoning takes place through the use of opponent models—recursive representations of an agent’s knowledge and beliefs regarding the opponent’s knowledge. Using such models, we present three approaches to reasoning. The first directly utilises the opponent model to identify the best move to advance in a dialogue. The second extends our basic approach through the use of quantitative uncertainty over the opponent’s model. The final extension introduces virtual arguments into the opponent’s reasoning process. Such arguments are unknown to the agent, but presumed to exist and interact with known arguments. They are therefore used to add a primitive notion of risk to the agent’s reasoning. We have implemented our models and we have performed an empirical analysis that shows that this added expressivity improves the performance of an agent in a dialogue.
منابع مشابه
Optimal Simple Strategies for Persuasion
Argument dialogues provide a principled way of structuring rational interactions between participants (be they human or machine), each arguing over the validity of certain claims, with each agent aiming for an outcome that achieves their dialogue goal (e.g., to persuade the other participant to accept their point of view [8], or to reach agreement on an action to perform [2]). Achievement of an...
متن کاملModelling Uncertainty in Persuasion
Participants in argumentation often have some doubts in their arguments and/or the arguments of the other participants. In this paper, we model uncertainty in beliefs using a probability distribution over models of the language, and use this to identify which are good arguments (i.e. those with support with a probability on or above a threshold). We then investigate three strategies for partici...
متن کاملReasons and Options for Updating an Opponent Model in Persuasion Dialogues
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 developing 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 l...
متن کاملArguing Using Opponent Models
While researchers have looked at many aspects of argumentation, an area often neglected is that of argumentation strategies. That is, given multiple possible arguments that an agent can put forth, which should be selected in what circumstances. In this paper we propose a heuristic that implements one such strategy. The heuristic is built around opponent modelling, and operates by selecting the ...
متن کاملBuilding Support-Based Opponent Models in Persuasion Dialogues
This paper deals with an approach to opponent-modelling in argumentation-based persuasion dialogues. It assumes that dialogue participants (agents) have models of their opponents’ knowledge, which can be augmented based on previous dialogues. Specifically, previous dialogues indicate relationships of support, which refer both to arguments as abstract entities and to their logical constituents. ...
متن کامل