Estimating Second-Order Arguments in Dialogical Settings

نویسندگان

  • Seyed Ali Hosseini
  • Sanjay Modgil
  • Odinaldo Rodrigues
چکیده

This paper proposes mechanisms for agents to model other agents’ arguments, so that modelling agents can anticipate the likelihood that their interlocutors can constructs arguments in dialogues. In contrast with existing works on “opponent modelling” which treat arguments as abstract entities, the likelihood that an agent can construct an argument is derived from the likelihoods that it possesses the beliefs required to construct the argument. We therefore also address how a modeller can quantify the certainty that its interlocutor possesses beliefs based on previous dialogues, and membership of interlocutors in communities.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Analysis 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

Argumentation without arguments

A well-known ambiguity in the term ‘argument’ is that of argument as an inferential structure and argument as a kind of dialogue. In the first sense, an argument is a structure with a conclusion supported by one or more grounds, which may or may not be supported by further grounds. Rules for the construction and criteria for the quality of arguments in this sense are a matter of logic. In the s...

متن کامل

Modelling 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 کامل

From systems for defeasible argumentation to dialogical systems of argumentation

Nonmonotonic reasoning is a reasoning in which temporary conclusions can be drawn on the basis of incomplete information but which might be withdrawn when more information becomes available. Systems for defeasible argumentation capture this kind of reasoning in terms of interactions between conflictual arguments. Nonmonotonic reasoning is explained in terms of defeasibility since arguments can ...

متن کامل

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 کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2016