Advertisement

A Strategy for Efficient Persuasion Dialogues

  • Katie Atkinson
  • Priscilla Bench-Capon
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 358)

Abstract

Several dialogue types, including inquiry, persuasion and deliberation, transfer information between agents so that their beliefs and opinions may be revised. The speech acts in different dialogue types have different pragmatic implications. For a representative sub-type of persuasion dialogues we consider how they can be conducted efficiently, in terms of minimising the expected transfer of information, and develop a strategy for efficient persuasion by exploiting the pragmatic implications. We demonstrate that our strategy is optimal for this sub-type.

Keywords

Optimal Strategy Maximum Utility Conversational Implicature Individual Goal Current Utility 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bench-Capon, T.: Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties without a consensus about values. Informal Logic 22(32), 231–245 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Black, E., Hunter, A.: An inquiry dialogue system. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 19(2), 173–209 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1-2), 95–138 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grice, H.: Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, pp. 43–58. Academic Press, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., Parsons, S.: The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22(1), 95–132 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review 21(2), 163–188 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Searle, J.R.: Rationality in Action. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walton, D.: Dialectical relevance in persuasion dialogue. Informal Logic 19(2-3), 119–135 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katie Atkinson
    • 1
  • Priscilla Bench-Capon
    • 2
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolU.K.
  2. 2.Open UniversityMilton KeynesU.K.

Personalised recommendations