An Empirical Study of Argumentation Schemes for Deliberative Dialogue

نویسندگان

  • Alice Toniolo
  • Timothy J. Norman
  • Katia P. Sycara
چکیده

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.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

On the benefits of argumentation schemes in deliberative dialogue

We present a model of argumentation-based deliberative dialogue for decision making in a team of agents. The model captures conflicts among agents’ plans due to scheduling and causality constraints, and conflicts between actions, goals and norms. We evaluate this model in complex collaborative planning problems to assess its ability to resolve such conflicts. We show that a model grounded on ap...

متن کامل

Argumentation Schemes for Collaborative Planning

We address the collaborative planning problem in teams of agents where partners have different objectives and norms. In this context, agreeing on the best course of action to adopt represents a significant challenge. Concurrent actions and causal plan-constraints may lead to conflicts of opinion on what to do. Moreover, individual norms can constrain agent behaviour. We propose an argumentation...

متن کامل

Searching for the Origins of Schwab's Deliberative Curriculum Theory in the Thoughts of Aristotle, Dewey and Habermas

The main purpose of this study is exploring the roots and foundations of Schwab’s deliberative theory in curriculum. Therefore, after examining this theory in introduction, its foundations and origins were investigated. According to this, basic assumptions of this theory are practical and quasi practical arts, eclectic arts, commonplace and collective decision. Aristotle’s distinction between i...

متن کامل

Computational Dialectic and Rhetorical Invention

This paper has three dimensions, historical, theoretical and social. The historical dimension is to show how the Ciceronian system of dialectical argumentation served as a precursor to recent computational models like the Carneades argumentation model. The theoretical dimension is to show concretely how these models reveal the interdependency of rhetoric and logic, and so the interdependency of...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2012