Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
References

Argumentation in the Framework of Deliberation Dialogue

Profile image of Douglas WaltonDouglas Walton

D. Walton, K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, A. Wyner and D. Cartwright, Arguing Global Governance, ed. Corneliu Bjola and Markus Kornprobst, London, Routledge, 2010, 210-230.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203842577-22
visibility

…

description

22 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

According to argumentation theory, reasoning takes place in different types of dialogue. These different dialogue types may be nested within one another. Current research in artificial intelligence is building formal models corresponding to each of these types of dialogue and showing how they can be implemented in, for example, multi-agent communications systems. In this paper, we (1) clarify the distinction between deliberation dialogue and persuasion dialogue, (2) survey some recent research in artificial intelligence studying formal properties of deliberation dialogue, (3) and present a model of argumentation in deliberation dialogue that has proved to be useful in electronic democracy

Figures (4)
party. This thesis is set during the opening stage, when the conflict of opinions for the dialogue is identified. In order to prove his or her thesis, the party must only use arguments that have premises that are commitments of the other party. The act of persuasion is defined by this use of argumentation. To persuade the other party of a conclusion, you must use premises that she already accepts, or can be gotten to accept through further argumentation. To accomplish this feat, you must find a persuasive argument that is strong enough to meet the burden of proof set at the opening stage. The overarching principle of burden of proof, called the burden of persuasion, the requirement that he who asserts must prove, is set at the opening stage, as shown in figure 1. Meeting the burden of persuasion is determined by three factors: (1) what strength of argument is needed to win the dialogue for a participant at the closing stage (standard of proof), (2) which side bears the so-called burden for producing such an argument, and (3) what kind of argument is required for this purpose. ‘Winning’ means producing an argument that is stronger enough than the opponent’s argument to lift the burden of persuasion set at the opening stage. In contrast to the burden of persuasion that applies over the whole dialogue from opening to closing, there is also the evidential burden (called the burden of production in law) that applies during the argumentation stage when a particular claim is made or a particular argument is put forward. Both burden of persuasion and evidential burden are burdens of proof. Both deliberation and persuasion dialogues can be about actions, and therefore we conclusion, you must use premises that she already accepts, or can be gotten to accept
party. This thesis is set during the opening stage, when the conflict of opinions for the dialogue is identified. In order to prove his or her thesis, the party must only use arguments that have premises that are commitments of the other party. The act of persuasion is defined by this use of argumentation. To persuade the other party of a conclusion, you must use premises that she already accepts, or can be gotten to accept through further argumentation. To accomplish this feat, you must find a persuasive argument that is strong enough to meet the burden of proof set at the opening stage. The overarching principle of burden of proof, called the burden of persuasion, the requirement that he who asserts must prove, is set at the opening stage, as shown in figure 1. Meeting the burden of persuasion is determined by three factors: (1) what strength of argument is needed to win the dialogue for a participant at the closing stage (standard of proof), (2) which side bears the so-called burden for producing such an argument, and (3) what kind of argument is required for this purpose. ‘Winning’ means producing an argument that is stronger enough than the opponent’s argument to lift the burden of persuasion set at the opening stage. In contrast to the burden of persuasion that applies over the whole dialogue from opening to closing, there is also the evidential burden (called the burden of production in law) that applies during the argumentation stage when a particular claim is made or a particular argument is put forward. Both burden of persuasion and evidential burden are burdens of proof. Both deliberation and persuasion dialogues can be about actions, and therefore we conclusion, you must use premises that she already accepts, or can be gotten to accept
Figure 2: Key for Determining Type of Dialogue in a Case In some instances it may be difficult to identify the type of dialogue. In everyday conversational argumentation, participants may be unclear, when putting an argument or criticizing it, what type of conversation they are supposed to be engaging in. That is not an insuperable problem however, as the rational critic may make a conditional decision on how to treat the case. The analysis of the argument can be conditional on this assumption. In some special cases however, as shown in section 3, making this decision can be tricky. There appears to be no burden of proof in a deliberation dialogue, comparable to the central notion of burden of proof in persuasion dialogue, but this matter has so far not been studied. Argumentation in deliberation is primarily a matter of identifying proposals and arguments supporting them and finding critiques of other proposals. Also a proposal may need to be abandoned if the reasons given against it are strong enough to show that the opposed proposal is better to solve the problem posed at the opening stage, but abandoning a proposal is not losing the dialogue, but progress towards resolution. Deliberation dialogue is different from negotiation dialogue, which deals with competing interests, because the participants evaluate proposed courses of action according to standards that may be contrary to their personal interests, and typically negotiation involves proposal trade-offs and compromises. When confronting an argument used in a text of discourse. a rational critic needs to
Figure 2: Key for Determining Type of Dialogue in a Case In some instances it may be difficult to identify the type of dialogue. In everyday conversational argumentation, participants may be unclear, when putting an argument or criticizing it, what type of conversation they are supposed to be engaging in. That is not an insuperable problem however, as the rational critic may make a conditional decision on how to treat the case. The analysis of the argument can be conditional on this assumption. In some special cases however, as shown in section 3, making this decision can be tricky. There appears to be no burden of proof in a deliberation dialogue, comparable to the central notion of burden of proof in persuasion dialogue, but this matter has so far not been studied. Argumentation in deliberation is primarily a matter of identifying proposals and arguments supporting them and finding critiques of other proposals. Also a proposal may need to be abandoned if the reasons given against it are strong enough to show that the opposed proposal is better to solve the problem posed at the opening stage, but abandoning a proposal is not losing the dialogue, but progress towards resolution. Deliberation dialogue is different from negotiation dialogue, which deals with competing interests, because the participants evaluate proposed courses of action according to standards that may be contrary to their personal interests, and typically negotiation involves proposal trade-offs and compromises. When confronting an argument used in a text of discourse. a rational critic needs to
Figure 3: Graphical Representation of Arguments and Attacks in the Example. The conflict between ArgO and Arg2 needs to be resolved? differently from the one between ArgoO and Arg1; it will depend on the subjective preferences of the parties concerned, which are shown on the nodes in the graph in Figure 3. If the value fairness is preferred to the value affordability, Arg2 will cause ArgO to be rejected. Given the opposite preference, ArgO can be accepted with the reduction of fairness seen as unfortunate but inevitable. Bringing Arg3 into consideration however, offers a way in which affordability can be promoted without compromising fairness, since it is not attacked by Arg2. Of course, further arguments against Arg3 might be produced so that the value preference would again become crucial. On the basis of the arguments we have presented however, the rational conclusion would be to reject no-fault insurance and rely on competition to reduce premiums.
Figure 3: Graphical Representation of Arguments and Attacks in the Example. The conflict between ArgO and Arg2 needs to be resolved? differently from the one between ArgoO and Arg1; it will depend on the subjective preferences of the parties concerned, which are shown on the nodes in the graph in Figure 3. If the value fairness is preferred to the value affordability, Arg2 will cause ArgO to be rejected. Given the opposite preference, ArgO can be accepted with the reduction of fairness seen as unfortunate but inevitable. Bringing Arg3 into consideration however, offers a way in which affordability can be promoted without compromising fairness, since it is not attacked by Arg2. Of course, further arguments against Arg3 might be produced so that the value preference would again become crucial. On the basis of the arguments we have presented however, the rational conclusion would be to reject no-fault insurance and rely on competition to reduce premiums.
5. Contrast with Decision Making Based on Expected Utility In the traditional model of decision-making alternatives are stated and the expected costs and expected benefits of each alternative are compared, and the alternative with the greatest expected utility is selected. Some doubt has been cast on this model of decision making by experimental economics, e.g. (Forsythe et a/., 1994) and (Bardsley, 2007). One of these experiments, the so-called ‘Dictator Game’’ has been re-cast using arguments based on the value-based practical reasoning scheme in (Atkinson and Bench-Capon, 2008). In these experiments agents appear not to choose states maximizing their utility and indeed the state chosen often depends on how the experiment is stated, even where this does not change the expected utility of states. (Atkinson and Bench-Capon, 2008) shows how choosing an action on the basis of
5. Contrast with Decision Making Based on Expected Utility In the traditional model of decision-making alternatives are stated and the expected costs and expected benefits of each alternative are compared, and the alternative with the greatest expected utility is selected. Some doubt has been cast on this model of decision making by experimental economics, e.g. (Forsythe et a/., 1994) and (Bardsley, 2007). One of these experiments, the so-called ‘Dictator Game’’ has been re-cast using arguments based on the value-based practical reasoning scheme in (Atkinson and Bench-Capon, 2008). In these experiments agents appear not to choose states maximizing their utility and indeed the state chosen often depends on how the experiment is stated, even where this does not change the expected utility of states. (Atkinson and Bench-Capon, 2008) shows how choosing an action on the basis of

Related papers

Argumentation in multi-agent systems: Context and recent developments
Simon Parsons

2007

The theory of argumentation [81] isa rich, interdisciplinary area of research lying across philosophy, communication studies, linguistics, and psychology. Its techniques and results have found a wide range of applications in both theoretical and practical branches of artificial intelligence and computer science [14,74]. These applications range from specifying semantics for logic programs [20], to natural language text generation [21], to supporting legal reasoning [9], to decision-support for multi-party human decision-making [31] and conflict resolution [80].

View PDFchevron_right
An empirical study of a deliberation dialogue system
Katie Bentley

2011

We present an empirical simulation-based study of the use of valuebased argumentation in two-party deliberation dialogues, investigating the impact that argumentation can have on the quality of the outcome reached. Our simulation allows us to vary the number of values, actions and arguments that appear in the system; we investigate how the behaviour of the system changes as these parameters vary. This parameter sensitivity analysis tells us whether a value-based deliberation dialogue system may be useful for a particular real-world application. We measure the quality of the dialogue outcome (i.e. the action that the agents agree to) against a global view of whether that action would be agreeable to each agent if all of the agents' knowledge were taken into account. We compare the deliberation outcome with a simple consensus forming procedure (where no arguments are exchanged). Our results show that the deliberation dialogue system we present outperforms consensus forming.

View PDFchevron_right
A computational approach for argumentative discourse in multidagent decision making environments
Nikos Karacapilidis

Ai Communications, 1998

This paper describes a Group Decision Support System for cooperative or non-cooperative argumentative discourses. The system provides agents means of expressing and weighing their individual arguments and preferences, in order to argue for or against the selection of a certain choice. It supports defeasible and qualitative reasoning in the presence of illstructured information. Argumentation is performed through a set of discourse acts which call a variety of procedures for the propagation of information in the corresponding discussion graph. The system incorporates Case Based Reasoning to resolve current issues by using previous similar situations. Cases are not mere representations of past data, but flexible entities associated with the underlying viewpoint of an agent and the evolution of the corresponding discussion. The paper provides an object-oriented description of the elements involved, and illustrates their dependencies through a comprehensive example. 1 the term informal logic was primarily used to denote an approach to argument interpretation and evaluation that is distinct from traditional, formal logic. AI Communications 0 () 0

View PDFchevron_right
A Framework for Multiagent Deliberation Based on Dialectical Argumentation
Guillermo R Simari

Simply put, a multiagent system can be seen as a collection of autonomous agents that as a whole are able to accomplish goals beyond the reach of any of its members. Agent interaction is widely acknowledged as the feature that provides this added potential. Since many, if not all, of the attractive agent interactions can be recasted as deliberations, a formalization for this process is being actively seek.

View PDFchevron_right
ABA: Argumentation Based Agents
Antonis Kakas

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2012

Many works have identified the potential benefits of using argumentation in multiagent settings, as a way to implement the capabilities of agents (eg. decision making, communication, negotiation) when confronted with specific multiagent problems. In this paper we take this idea one step further and develop the concept of a fully integrated argumentation-based agent architecture. Under this architecture, an agent is composed of a collection of modules each of which is responsible for a basic capability or reasoning task of the agent. A local argumentation theory in the module gives preferred decision choices for the module's task in a way that is sensitive to the way the agent is currently situated in its external environment. The inter-module coordination or intra-agent control also relies on a local argumentation theory in each module that defines an internal communication policy between the modules. The paper lays the foundations of this approach, presents an abstract agent architecture and gives the general underlying argumentation machinery minimally required for building such agents, including the important aspects of inter-module coordination via argumentation. It presents the basic properties that we can expect from these agents and illustrates the possibility of this type of agent design with its advantages of high-level of flexibility and expressiveness.

View PDFchevron_right
An Infrastructure for Argumentative Agents
Jaume Jordan

Computational Intelligence, 2014

Multi-Agent Systems are suitable to provide a framework that allows to perform collaborative processes in a social context. Furthermore, argumentation is a natural way of reaching agreements between several parties. However, it is difficult to find infrastructures of argumentation offering support for agent societies and their social context. Offering support for agent societies allows to represent more realistic environments to have argumentation dialogues. We propose an infrastructure to develop and execute argumentative agents in an open MAS. It offers tools to develop agents with argumentation capabilities. It also offers support for agent societies and their social context. The infrastructure is publicly available. Also, it has been implemented in an application scenario where argumentative agents try to reach an agreement about the best solution to solve a problem reported to the system.

View PDFchevron_right
Towards Practical Argumentation-Based Dialogues in Multi-agent Systems
Alison R Panisson

2015 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), 2015

Although argumentation has been a prominent topic of research in artificial intelligence and in particular agent communication, there has been little work on practical (but provably sound) argumentation approaches integrated with agent programming languages. In this paper, we develop a formallygrounded mechanism for practical argumentation-based dialogues in an agent platform based on a multi-agent programming language. We formalise a protocol to govern such dialogues, where agents use an argumentation-based reasoning mechanism that has been implemented. We prove that dialogues following our protocol always terminate and that ideal solutions are reached under certain conditions. The protocol is simple but was shown to be useful in a multi-agent system application that supports teams of cooperating humans.

View PDFchevron_right
Argumentation and dialogue in artificial intelligence
Trevor Bench-Capon

2005

In Artificial Intelligence reasoning is often modelled on the presentation of a proof. In some domains and for some topics this is entirely appropriate, but if we look at the justifications of reasoning offered in practice, they often fall short of the standards required by proof. Whereas a proof compels us to accept the conclusion if we accept the premises, natural language justifications tend to be open to objections: they may persuade, but they rarely compel.

View PDFchevron_right
Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
Simon Parsons

2005

This volume presents the recent developments of the growing area of research taking place at the interface of argumentation theory and multiagent systems. Argumentation can be abstractly defined as the interaction of different arguments for and against some conclusion. Over the last few years, argumentation has been gaining increasing importance in multiagent systems, mainly as a vehicle for facilitating “rational interaction”(ie, interaction which involves the giving and receiving of reasons).

View PDFchevron_right
Missing Phases of Deliberation Dialogue for Real Applications
alice toniolo

Models of deliberative dialogue are fundamental for developing autonomous systems that support human practical reasoning. However, we must consider whether these existing models are able to capture the complexity and richness of natural deliberation for developing real applications. In real contexts, circumstances relevant to the decision can change rapidly. In this paper, we introduce an extension to today's leading model of deliberation dialogue to capture dynamic changes of circumstances during dialogue. Moreover, in natural deliberation, a dialogue may be successful even if a decision on what to do has not been made. A set of criteria is proposed to address the problem of when to close off the practical reasoning phase of dialogue. We then discuss some initial efforts to introduce those characteristics within an existing model of deliberation for agent collaboration. We believe that our extended model of dialogue may represent that richness of natural deliberative dialogue that is yet to be addressed in existing models of agent deliberation.

View PDFchevron_right

References (19)

  1. Katie Atkinson, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon and Peter McBurney, 'A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action', Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 2005, 153-171.
  2. Katie Atkinson, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon and Peter McBurney, 'Computational Representation of Practical Argument', Synthese, 152, 2006, 157-206.
  3. Katie Atkinson and Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, 'Value-Based Arguments in the Dictator Game'. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Multidisciplinary Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling, 2008. Accepted for publication, to appear in July 2008.
  4. Nick Bardsley, 'Dictator Game Giving: Altruism or Artefact.' Experimental Economics. In press, available through Online First.
  5. Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, 'Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks', Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 2003, 429-448.
  6. Elizabeth Black and Anthony Hunter, 'A Generative Inquiry Dialogue System.' In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS'07), ACM Press, 2007, 1010-1017.
  7. Michael E. Bratman, David J. Israel and Martha E. Pollack, 'Plans and Resource-bounded Practical Reasoning', Computational Intelligence, 4, 1988, 349-355.
  8. Dan Cartwright and Katie Atkinson, 'Political Engagement through Tools for Argumentation'. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre and A. Hunter (editors): Computational Models of Argument, Proceedings of COMMA-2008. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 172. IOS Press, Amsterdam.
  9. Phan Minh Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1993), pages 852-859, 1993.
  10. Robert Forsythe, Joel L. Horowitz, N. E. Savin and Martin Sefton. 'Fairness in simple bargaining experiments.' Game and Economic Behavior 6(3), 1994, 347-369.
  11. Thomas F. Gordon and Nikos I. Karacapilidis. 'The Zeno Argumentation Framework.' In Proceedings of 6th International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL-1997), ACM Press, New York, 1997, 10-18.
  12. Marc-Philippe Huget (editor), Communication in Multiagent Systems: background, current trends and future, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2650, Springer, 2003.
  13. Edward L. Lascher, The Politics of Automobile Insurance Reform: Ideas, Institutions, and Public Policy in North America, Washington, Georgetown University Press, 1999.
  14. Ann Macintosh, Edmund Robson, Ella Smith and Angus Whyte. 'Electronic Democracy and Young People'. Social Science Computer Review. 21(1):43-54, 2003.
  15. Peter McBurney, David Hitchcock and Simon Parsons, 'The Eightfold Way of Deliberation Dialogue', International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22, 2007, 95-132.
  16. Chris Reed and Glen Rowe. 'Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation', International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 14(3- 4): 961-980, 2004.
  17. John R. Searle, Rationality in Action, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001. Yuqing Tang and Simon Parsons, 'Argumentation-Based Multi-agent Dialogues for Deliberation', Proceedings of ArgMAS 2005, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 4049, Berlin, Springer, 2006, 229-244.
  18. Douglas Walton, The New Dialectic, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1998.
  19. Douglas Walton, 'How to Make and Defend a Proposal in Deliberation Dialogue', Artificial Intelligence and Law, 14, 2006, 177-239.

Related papers

Argumentation-Based multi-agent dialogues for deliberation
Simon Parsons

2006

Abstract. This paper presents an argumentation-based approach to deliberation, the process by which two or more agents reach a consensus on a course of action. The kind of deliberation that we are interested in is a process that combines both the selection of an overall goal, the reduction of this goal into sub-goals, and the formation of a plan to achieve the overall goal.

View PDFchevron_right
A Formal Argumentation Framework for Deliberation Dialogues
Gerard Vreeswijk

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2011

Agents engage in deliberation dialogues to collectively decide on a course of action. To solve conflicts of opinion that arise, they can question claims and supply arguments. Existing models fail to capture the interplay between the provided arguments as well as successively selecting a winner from the proposals. This paper introduces a general framework for agent deliberation dialogues that uses an explicit reply structure to produce coherent dialogues, guides in outcome selection and provide pointers for agent strategies.

View PDFchevron_right
Argumentation-based dialogues for deliberation
Simon Parsons

2005

Abstract This paper presents an argumentation-based approach to deliberation, the process by which two or more agents reach a consensus on a course of action. The kind of deliberation we are interested in combines both the selection of an overall goal, the reduction of this goal into sub-goals, and the formation of a plan to achieve the overall goal.

View PDFchevron_right
Argumentation Machines: New frontiers in argumentation and computation
Timothy Norman

Computational Linguistics

View PDFchevron_right
An Argumentation-Based Framework for Deliberation in Multi-agent Systems
Santiago Ontanon

2007

This paper focuses of the group judgments obtained from a committee of agents that use deliberation. The deliberative process is realized by an argumentation framework called AMAL. The AMAL framework is completely based on learning from examples: the argument preference relation, the argument generation policy, and the counterargument generation policy are case-based techniques. For join deliberation, learning agents share their experience by forming a committee to decide upon some joint decision. We experimentally show that the deliberation in committees of agents improves the accuracy of group judgments. We also show that a voting scheme based on assessing the confidence of arguments improves the accuracy of group judgments than majority voting.

View PDFchevron_right

Cited by

Oral Argumentation Skills between Process and Product
Daniel Müller-Feldmeth

Languages

Oral argumentation skills have become a ‘hot topic’ within pragmatic language acquisition research as well as didactical research. In this study, we first discuss characteristics specific to oral argumentation which, compared to written argumentation, has its own mediality and therefore specific requirements. To reconstruct different levels of oral argumentation skills of school children in grades 2, 4 and 6, we collected a corpus of 180 peer discussions without adult supervision and analyzed them based on conversation analysis. In our case study we compare two conversations in terms of different modalizations and epistemic stances in positionings and justifications and briefly show how the use of modalizations can shape both the character as well as the argumentative structure of a conversation. We argue that process-related and stylistic conversational aspects beyond structural aspects in a narrow sense shape oral argumentation to a high degree and therefore belong to the core asp...

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved