EFFICIENCY IN PERSUASION DIALOGUES

Katie Atkinson, Priscilla Bench-Capon, Trevor Bench-Capon

2012

Abstract

Inquiry, Persuasion and Deliberation Dialogues are all designed to transfer information between agents so that their beliefs and opinions may be revised in the light of the new information, and all make use of a similar set of speech acts. These dialogues also have significant differences. We define success conditions for some different dialogue types in this family and note the pragmatic implications of the speech acts they employ. Focusing on persuasion we consider how successful persuasion dialogues can be conducted efficiently, in terms of minimising the expected transfer of information. We observe that a strategy for efficient persuasion can be developed by considering the pragmatic implications. We present results showing that our strategy is an optimal strategy in a range of representative persuasion scenarios.

References

  1. Bench-Capon, T. (2002). Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties without a consensus about values. Informal Logic, 22(32).
  2. Black, E. and Hunter, A. (2009). An inquiry dialogue system. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 19(2):173-209.
  3. Dunne, P. E. and McBurney, P. (2003). Concepts of optimal utterance in dialogue: Selection and complexity. In Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, Springer LNCS 2922, pages 310-328.
  4. García, A. J. and Simari, G. R. (2004). Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4(1-2):95-138.
  5. Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., editors, Syntax and semantics, vol 3, pages 43-58. Academic Press, New York.
  6. McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., and Parsons, S. (2007). The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1):95-132.
  7. Prakken, H. (2006). Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(2):163- 188.
  8. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S. D., Jennings, N. R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., and Sonenberg, L. (2003). Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(4):343-375.
  9. Searle, J. R. (2003). Rationality in Action. The MIT Press, Cambridge.
  10. Walton, D. (1998). The New Dialectic. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
  11. Walton, D. and Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany NY.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Atkinson K., Bench-Capon P. and Bench-Capon T. (2012). EFFICIENCY IN PERSUASION DIALOGUES . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART, ISBN 978-989-8425-96-6, pages 23-32. DOI: 10.5220/0003727400230032


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icaart12,
author={Katie Atkinson and Priscilla Bench-Capon and Trevor Bench-Capon},
title={EFFICIENCY IN PERSUASION DIALOGUES},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,},
year={2012},
pages={23-32},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003727400230032},
isbn={978-989-8425-96-6},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,
TI - EFFICIENCY IN PERSUASION DIALOGUES
SN - 978-989-8425-96-6
AU - Atkinson K.
AU - Bench-Capon P.
AU - Bench-Capon T.
PY - 2012
SP - 23
EP - 32
DO - 10.5220/0003727400230032