Probabilistic Strategies in Dialogical Argumentation
نویسنده
چکیده
In dialogical argumentation, a participant is often unsure what moves the other participant(s) might make. If the dialogue is proceeding according to some accepted protocol, then a participant might be able to determine what are the possible moves that the other might make, but the participant might be unsure as to which move will be chosen by the other agent. In this paper, propositional executable logic is augmented with probabilities that reflect the probability that any given move will be chosen by the agent. This provides a simple and lucid language that can be executed to generate a dialogue. Furthermore, a set of such rules for each agent can be represented by a probabilistic finite state machine (PFSM). For modelling dialogical argumentation, a PFSM can be used by one agent to model how the other agent may react to any dialogical move. An agent can then analyze the PFSM to determine the most likely outcomes of a dialogue given any choices it makes. This can be used by the agent to determine its choice of moves in order to optimize its outcomes from the dialogue.
منابع مشابه
Belief in Attacks in Epistemic Probabilistic Argumentation
The epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation assigns belief to arguments. This is valuable in dialogical argumentation where one agent can model the beliefs another agent has in the arguments and this can be harnessed to make strategic choices of arguments to present. In this paper, we extend this epistemic approach by also representing the belief in attacks. We investigate properties ...
متن کاملEmpirical evaluation of abstract argumentation: Supporting the need for bipolar and probabilistic approaches
In dialogical argumentation, it is often assumed that the involved parties will always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other and realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views whenever new and correct information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is suff...
متن کاملDialectical Relevance and Dialogical Context in Walton’s Pragmatic Theory
The notions of types of dialogue and dialectical relevance are central themes in Walton’s work and the grounds for a dialectical approach to many fallacies. After outlining the dialogue models constituting the background of Walton’s account, this article presents the concepts of dialectical relevance and dialogue shifts in their application to biased argumentation, fallacious moves, and illicit...
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 کاملAnalysis 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 f...
متن کامل