Using enthymemes in an inquiry dialogue system

ABSTRACT

A common assumption for logic-based argumentation is that an argument is a pair (Φ, α) where Φ is a minimal subset of the knowledgebase such that Φ is consistent and Φ entails the claim α. However, real arguments (i.e. arguments presented by humans) usually do not have enough explicitly presented premises for the entailment of the claim (i.e. they are enthymemes). This is because there is some common knowledge that can be assumed by a proponent of an argument and the recipient of it. This allows the proponent of an argument to encode an argument into a real argument by ignoring the common knowledge, and it allows a recipient of a real argument to decode it into the intended argument by drawing on the common knowledge. If both the proponent and recipient use the same common knowledge, then this process is straightforward. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and this raises interesting issues for dialogue systems in which the recipient has to cope with the disparities between the different views on what constitutes common knowledge. Here we investigate the use of enthymemes in inquiry dialogues. For this, we propose a generative inquiry dialogue system and show how, in this dialogue system, enthymemes can be managed by the agents involved, and how common knowledge can evolve through dialogue.

REFERENCES

• 1: Leila Amgoud , Claudette Cayrol, A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, v.34 n.1-3, p.197-215, March 2002 [doi>10.1023/A:1014490210693]
• 2: L. Amgoud and N. Hameurlain. An argumentation-based approach for dialogue move selection. In 3rd Int. Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, pages 111--125, 2006.
• 3: Philippe Besnard , Anthony Hunter, A logic-based theory of deductive arguments, Artificial Intelligence, v.128 n.1-2, p.203-235, May 2001 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00071-6]
• 4: Elizabeth Black , Anthony Hunter, A generative inquiry dialogue system, Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, May 14-18, 2007, Honolulu, Hawaii [doi>10.1145/1329125.1329417]
• 5: P. M. Dung , R. A. Kowalski , F. Toni, Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation, Artificial Intelligence, v.170 n.2, p.114-159, February 2006 [doi>10.1016/j.artint.2005.07.002]
• 6: Thomas Eiter , Georg Gottlob , Nicola Leone, Semantics and complexity of abduction from default theories, Artificial Intelligence, v.90 n.1-2, p.177-223, Feb. 1997 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(96)00040-9]
• 7: Alejandro J. García , Guillermo R. Simari, Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, v.4 n.2, p.95-138, January 2004 [doi>10.1017/S1471068403001674]
• 8: A. Hunter. Real arguments are approximate arguments. In 22nd Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-07), pages 66--71, 2007.
• 9: Antonis Kakas , Nicolas Maudet , Pavlos Moraitis, Modular Representation of Agent Interaction Rules through Argumentation, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, v.11 n.2, p.189-206, September 2005 [doi>10.1007/s10458-005-2176-4]
• 10: Peter McBurney , Simon Parsons, Representing Epistemic Uncertainty by Means of Dialectical Argumentation, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, v.32 n.1-4, p.125-169, August 2001 [doi>10.1023/A:1016757315265]
• 11: Simon Parsons , Peter McBurney , Elizabeth Sklar , Michael Wooldridge, On the relevance of utterances in formal inter-agent dialogues, Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, May 14-18, 2007, Honolulu, Hawaii [doi>10.1145/1329125.1329416]
• 12: S. Parsons, M. Wooldridge, and L. Amgoud. Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. J. of Logic and Comp., 13(3):347--376, 2003.
• 13: Henry Prakken, Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation, Journal of Logic and Computation, v.15 n.6, p.1009-1040, December 2005 [doi>10.1093/logcom/exi046]
• 14: Iyad Rahwan , Liz Sonenberg , Nicholas R. Jennings , Peter McBurney, STRATUM: A METHODOLOGY FOR DESIGNING HEURISTIC AGENT NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES, Applied Artificial Intelligence, v.21 n.6, p.489-527, June 2007 [doi>10.1080/08839510701408971]
• 15: F. Sadri, F. Toni, and P. Torroni. Dialogues for negotiation: Agent varieties and dialogue sequences. In 8th Int. Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, pages 69--84, 2001.
• 16: Dan Sperber , Deirdre Wilson, Relevance: communication and cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986
• 17: D. N. Walton. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
• 18: D. N. Walton and E. C. W. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, 1995.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
        I.2.11 Distributed Artificial Intelligence

General Terms:
Design, Theory

Keywords:
argumentation, cooperation, dialogue, enthymemes, inquiry