An Empirical Study of Argumentation Schemes for Deliberative Dialogue

Alice Toniolo*, Timothy J. Norman, Katia Sycara

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Collaborative decision making among agents in a team is a complex activity, and tasks to achieve individual objectives may conflict in a team context. A number of argumentation-based models have been proposed to address the problem, the rationale being that the revelation of background information and constraints can aid in the discovery and resolution of conflicts. To date, however, no empirical studies have been conducted to substantiate these claims. In this paper, we discuss a model, grounded on argumentation schemes, that captures potential conflicts due to scheduling and causality constraints, and individual goals and norms. We evaluate this model in complex collaborative planning problems and show that such a model facilitates the sharing of relevant information pertaining to plan, goal and normative conflicts. Further, we show that this focussed information sharing leads to more effective conflict resolution, particularly in the most challenging problems.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publication20TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (ECAI 2012)
EditorsL DeRaedt, C Bessiere, D Dubois, P Doherty, P Frasconi, F Heintz, P Lucas
PublisherIOS Press
Pages756-761
Number of pages6
ISBN (Print)978-1-61499-097-0
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012
Event20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) - Montpellier, France
Duration: 27 Aug 201231 Aug 2012

Publication series

NameFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications
PublisherIOS PRESS
Volume242
ISSN (Print)0922-6389

Conference

Conference20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI)
Country/TerritoryFrance
CityMontpellier
Period27/08/1231/08/12

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'An Empirical Study of Argumentation Schemes for Deliberative Dialogue'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this