Advertisement

Formalizing Explanatory Dialogues

  • Abdallah AriouaEmail author
  • Madalina Croitoru
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9310)

Abstract

Many works have proposed architectures and models to incorporate explanation within agent’s design for various reasons (i.e. human-agent teamwork improvement, training in virtual environment [10], belief revision [8], etc.), with this novel architectures a problematic is emerged: how to communicate these explanations in a goal-directed and rule-governed dialogue system? In this paper we formalize Walton’s \(\mathtt CE\) dialectical system of explanatory dialogues in the framework of Prakken. We extend this formalization within the Extended \(\mathtt CE\) system by generalizing the protocol and incorporating a general account of dialectical shifts. More precisely, we show how a shift to any dialogue type can take place, as an example we describe a shift to argumentative dialogue with the goal of giving the explainee the possibility to challenge explainer’s explanations. In addition, we propose the use of commitment and understanding stores to avoid circular and inconsistent explanations and to judge the success of explanation. We show that the dialogue terminates, under specific conditions, in finite steps and the space complexity of the stores evolves polynomially in the size of the explanatory model.

Keywords

Explanatory Model Dialogue System Commitment Store Explanatory Dialogue Effect Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

Financial support from the French National Research Agency (ANR) for the project DUR-DUR (ANR-13-ALID-0002) is gratefully acknowledged. We are also grateful to Nouredine Tamani for his valuable comments on the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Arioua, A., Tamani, N., Croitoru, M., Buche, P.: Query failure explanation in inconsistent knowledge bases using argumentation. In: Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2014, vol. 266, p. 101 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arioua, A., Tamani, N., Croitoru, M., Buche, P.: Query failure explanation in inconsistent knowledge bases: a dialogical approach. In: Bramer, M., Petridis, M. (eds.) Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXXI, pp. 119–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M., de Saint Cyr-Bannay, F.D.: Towards a dual process cognitive model for argument evaluation. In: Beierle, C., Dekhtyar, A. (eds.) SUM 2015. LNAI, vol. 9310, pp. XX–YY. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bodenstaff, L., Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: On formalising dialogue systems for argumentation in the event calculus. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp. 374–382 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cawsey, A.: Explanation and Interaction: The Computer Generation of Explanatory Dialogues. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Vries, E., Lund, K., Baker, M.: Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. J. Learn. Sci. 11(1), 63–103 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Falappa, M.A., Kern-Isberner, G., Simari, G.R.: Explanations, belief revision and defeasible reasoning. Artif. Intell. 141, 1–28 (2002)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harbers, M., Bradshaw, J.M., Johnson, M., Feltovich, P., van den Bosch, K., Meyer, J.-J.: Explanation in human-agent teamwork. In: Cranefield, S., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Noriega, P. (eds.) COIN 2011. LNCS, vol. 7254, pp. 21–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harbers, M., van den Bosch, K., Meyer, J.-J.C.: A study into preferred explanations of virtual agent behavior. In: Ruttkay, Z., Kipp, M., Nijholt, A., Vilhjálmsson, H.H. (eds.) IVA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5773, pp. 132–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haynes, S.R., Cohen, M.A., Ritter, F.E.: Designs for explaining intelligent agents. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 67(1), 90–110 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khemlani, S., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Cognitive changes from explanations. J. Cogn. Psychol. 25(2), 139–146 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moore, J.D.: Participating in Explanatory Dialogues: Interpreting and Responding to Questions in Context. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moulin, B., Irandoust, H., Bélanger, M., Desbordes, G.: Explanation and argumentation capabilities: towards the creation of more persuasive agents. Artif. Int. Rev. 17(3), 169–222 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pitt, J.C.: Theories of Explanation. Oxford University Press, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J. Log. Comput. 15(6), 1009–1040 (2005)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tamani, N., Mosse, P., Croitoru, M., Buche, P., Guillard, V., Guillaume, C., Gontard, N.: An argumentation system for eco-efficient packaging material selection. Comput. Electron. Agric. 113, 174–192 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thomopoulos, R., Croitoru, M., Tamani, N.: Decision support for agri-food chains: a reverse engineering argumentation-based approach. Ecol. Inform. 26, 182–191 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walton, D.: Dialogical models of explanation. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Explanation-Aware Computing (ExaCt 2007), vol. 2007, pp. 1–9 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Walton, D.: A dialogue system specification for explanation. Synthese 182(3), 349–374 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INRA, UMR IATEMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.University of MontpellierMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations