Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strategic Dialogical Argumentation Using Multi-criteria Decision Making with Application to Epistemic and Emotional Aspects of Arguments

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems (FoIKS 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 10833))

Abstract

Participants in dialogical argumentation often make strategic choices of move, for example to maximize the probability that they will persuade the other opponents. Multiple dimensions of information about the other agents (e.g., the belief and likely emotional response that the other agents might have in the arguments) might be used to make this strategic choice. To support this, we present a framework with implementation for multi-criteria decision making for strategic argumentation. We provide methods to improve the computational viability of the framework, and analyze these methods theoretically and empirically. We finally present decision rules supported by the psychology literature and evidence using human experiments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The code, the graph and the mapping to the actual arguments can be found at https://github.com/ComputationalPersuasion/stardec.

  2. 2.

    https://www.crowdflower.com.

  3. 3.

    https://www.prolific.ac.

References

  1. Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J. Log. Comput. 15(6), 1009–1040 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Prakken, H.: Formal sytems for persuasion dialogue. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(2), 163–188 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fan, X., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation dialogues. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2011, pp. 198–203 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Caminada, M., Podlaszewski, M.: Grounded semantics as persuasion dialogue. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2012, pp. 478–485 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Thimm, M.: Strategic argumentation in multi-agent systems. Kunstliche Intelligenz 28, 159–168 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2008, pp. 150–155 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fan, X., Toni, F.: Mechanism design for argumentation-based persuasion. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2012, pp. 322–333 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rienstra, T., Thimm, M., Oren, N.: Opponent models with uncertainty for strategic argumentation. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2013, pp. 332–338 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hadjinikolis, C., Siantos, Y., Modgil, S., Black, E., McBurney, P.: Opponent modelling in persuasion dialogues. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2013, pp. 164–170 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hadoux, E., Beynier, A., Maudet, N., Weng, P., Hunter, A.: Optimization of probabilistic argumentation with Markov decision models. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2015, pp. 2004–2010 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Black, E., Coles, A., Bernardini, S.: Automated planning of simple persuasion dialogues. In: Bulling, N., van der Torre, L., Villata, S., Jamroga, W., Vasconcelos, W. (eds.) CLIMA 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8624, pp. 87–104. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09764-0_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Hadoux, E., Hunter, A.: Strategic sequences of arguments for persuasion using decision trees. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2017 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Thimm, M.: A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2012, pp. 750–755 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hunter, A.: A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 54(1), 47–81 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Hunter, A., Thimm, M.: Probabilistic argumentation with incomplete information. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2014, pp. 1033–1034 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Vicig, P.: On rationality conditions for epistemic probabilities in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2014, pp. 121–132 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lazarus, R.S.: Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. Am. psychol. 46(8), 819 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Scherer, K.R.: Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. Apprais. Process. Emot.: Theory, Methods, Res. 92(120), 57 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Duhachek, A., Agrawal, N., Han, D.: Guilt versus shame: coping, fluency, and framing in the effectiveness of responsible drinking messages. J. Mark. Res. 49(6), 928–941 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481), 453–458 (1981)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Ekman, P.: An argument for basic emotions. Cognit. Emot. 6(3–4), 169–200 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fulladoza Dalibón, S., Martinez, D., Simari, G.: Emotion-directed argument awareness for autonomous agent reasoning. Inteligencia Artificial. Revista Iberoamericana de Inteligencia Artificial 15(50), 30–45 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lloyd-Kelly, M., Wyner, A.: Arguing about emotion. In: Ardissono, L., Kuflik, T. (eds.) UMAP 2011. LNCS, vol. 7138, pp. 355–367. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28509-7_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Nawwab, F., Dunne, P., Bench-Capon, T.: Exploring the role of emotions in rational decision making. In: COMMA, pp. 367–378 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bradley, M., Lang, P.: Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical report, The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Warriner, A., Kuperman, V., Brysbaert, M.: Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behav. Res. Methods 45(4), 1191–1207 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Eder, A.B., Rothermund, K.: Automatic influence of arousal information on evaluative processing: valence-arousal interactions in an affective Simon task. Cognit. Emot. 24(6), 1053–1061 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jefferies, L.N., Smilek, D., Eich, E., Enns, J.T.: Emotional valence and arousal interact in attentional control. Psychol. Sci. 19(3), 290–295 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Robinson, M.D.: Watch out! that could be dangerous: valence-arousal interactions in evaluative processing. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30(11), 1472–1484 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 366–377. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Axiomatic foundations of acceptability semantics. In: Proceedings of KR 2016 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bonzon, E., Delobelle, J., Konieczny, S., Maudet, N.: A comparative study of ranking-based semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2016, pp. 914–920 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hunter, A.: Modelling the persuadee in asymmetric argumentation dialogues for persuasion. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2015, pp. 3055–3061 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mohammad, S.: Sentiment analysis: detecting valence, emotions, and other affectual states from text. In: Emotion Management, pp. 201–238. Elsevier (2016)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Peeters, G., Czapinski, J.: Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: the distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 1(1), 33–60 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., Vohs, K.D.: Bad is stronger than good. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 5(4), 323–370 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Chalaguine, L., Hadoux, E., Hamilton, F., Hayward, A., Hunter, A., Polberg, S., Potts, H.W.W.: Domain modelling in computational persuasion for behaviour change in healthcare. CoRR abs/1802.10054 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Martinovski, B., Mao, W.: Emotion as an argumentation engine: modeling the role of emotion in negotiation. Group Decis. Negot. 18, 235–259 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Benlamine, S., Chaouachi, M., Villata, S., Cabrio, E., Gandon, C.F.F.: Emotions in argumentation: an empirical evaluation. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2015, pp. 156–163 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Calvo, R., D’Mello, S.: Affect detection: an interdisciplinary review of models, methods, and their applications. IEEE Trans. Aff. Comput. 1(1), 18–37 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is part funded by EPSRC Project EP/N008294/1 (Framework for Computational Persuasion).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK

    Emmanuel Hadoux & Anthony Hunter

  2. LIMSI, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, 91405, Orsay, France

    Jean-Baptiste Corrégé

Authors
  1. Emmanuel Hadoux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anthony Hunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean-Baptiste Corrégé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuel Hadoux .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Software Competence Center Hagenberg, Hagenberg im Mühlkreis, Austria

    Flavio Ferrarotti

  2. Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria

    Stefan Woltran

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Hadoux, E., Hunter, A., Corrégé, JB. (2018). Strategic Dialogical Argumentation Using Multi-criteria Decision Making with Application to Epistemic and Emotional Aspects of Arguments. In: Ferrarotti, F., Woltran, S. (eds) Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems. FoIKS 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10833. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90050-6_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90050-6_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90049-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90050-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation