An empirical study of argumentation schemes in deliberative dialogue

Alice Toniolo, Timothy J Norman, Katia P Sycara

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

6 Citations (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)

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 publicationECAI 2012
Subtitle of host publication20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence
EditorsL. De Raedt, 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 - Aug 2012

Publication series

NameFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications
Volume242

Fingerprint

Empirical study
Argumentation
Conflict resolution
Rationale
Information sharing
Collaborative decision making
Causality
Collaborative planning

Keywords

  • Multi-agent systems
  • Argumentation

Cite this

Toniolo, A., Norman, T. J., & Sycara, K. P. (2012). An empirical study of argumentation schemes in deliberative dialogue. In L. De Raedt, C. Bessiere, D. Dubois, P. Doherty, P. Frasconi, F. Heintz, & P. Lucas (Eds.), ECAI 2012: 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 756-761). (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications; Vol. 242). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-756

An empirical study of argumentation schemes in deliberative dialogue. / Toniolo, Alice; Norman, Timothy J; Sycara, Katia P.

ECAI 2012: 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. ed. / L. De Raedt; C. Bessiere; D. Dubois; P. Doherty; P. Frasconi; F. Heintz; P. Lucas. IOS Press, 2012. p. 756-761 (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications; Vol. 242).

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

Toniolo, A, Norman, TJ & Sycara, KP 2012, An empirical study of argumentation schemes in deliberative dialogue. in L De Raedt, C Bessiere, D Dubois, P Doherty, P Frasconi, F Heintz & P Lucas (eds), ECAI 2012: 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 242, IOS Press, pp. 756-761. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-756
Toniolo A, Norman TJ, Sycara KP. An empirical study of argumentation schemes in deliberative dialogue. In De Raedt L, Bessiere C, Dubois D, Doherty P, Frasconi P, Heintz F, Lucas P, editors, ECAI 2012: 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IOS Press. 2012. p. 756-761. (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-756
Toniolo, Alice ; Norman, Timothy J ; Sycara, Katia P. / An empirical study of argumentation schemes in deliberative dialogue. ECAI 2012: 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. editor / L. De Raedt ; C. Bessiere ; D. Dubois ; P. Doherty ; P. Frasconi ; F. Heintz ; P. Lucas. IOS Press, 2012. pp. 756-761 (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications).
@inproceedings{091585669d214a409d9b25f9201b06ac,
title = "An empirical study of argumentation schemes in deliberative dialogue",
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.",
keywords = "Multi-agent systems, Argumentation",
author = "Alice Toniolo and Norman, {Timothy J} and Sycara, {Katia P}",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
doi = "10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-756",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-1-61499-097-0",
series = "Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications",
publisher = "IOS Press",
pages = "756--761",
editor = "{De Raedt}, {L. } and Bessiere, {C. } and Dubois, {D. } and Doherty, {P. } and Frasconi, {P. } and Heintz, {F. } and P. Lucas",
booktitle = "ECAI 2012",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - An empirical study of argumentation schemes in deliberative dialogue

AU - Toniolo, Alice

AU - Norman, Timothy J

AU - Sycara, Katia P

PY - 2012/8

Y1 - 2012/8

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Multi-agent systems

KW - Argumentation

U2 - 10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-756

DO - 10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-756

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 978-1-61499-097-0

T3 - Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

SP - 756

EP - 761

BT - ECAI 2012

A2 - De Raedt, L.

A2 - Bessiere, C.

A2 - Dubois, D.

A2 - Doherty, P.

A2 - Frasconi, P.

A2 - Heintz, F.

A2 - Lucas, P.

PB - IOS Press

ER -