1 / 60

Commonsense Reasoning and Argumentation 13/14 HC 14: Dialogue systems for argumentation (2)

Commonsense Reasoning and Argumentation 13/14 HC 14: Dialogue systems for argumentation (2). Henry Prakken 31 March 2014. Contents. Dialogue systems for argumentation (2) Prakken’s dialogue system framework. Two systems for persuasion dialogue. Parsons, Wooldridge & Amgoud

dewey
Télécharger la présentation

Commonsense Reasoning and Argumentation 13/14 HC 14: Dialogue systems for argumentation (2)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Commonsense Reasoning and Argumentation 13/14 HC 14:Dialogue systems for argumentation (2) Henry Prakken 31 March 2014

  2. Contents • Dialogue systems for argumentation (2) • Prakken’s dialogue system framework

  3. Two systems for persuasion dialogue • Parsons, Wooldridge & Amgoud • Journal of Logic and Computation 13(2003) • Prakken • Journal of Logic and Computation 15(2005)

  4. Prakken: languages, logic, agents • Lc: Any, provided it has a reply structure (attacks + surrenders) • Lt: any • Logic: argumentation logic •  ASPIC with grounded semantics • Assumptions on agents: none.

  5. Acts Attacked by Surrendered by claim p why p concede p why p Argue A (Conc(A) = p) retract p concede p retract p Argue A Argue B (defeats its target) Why p (p  Prem(A)) concede A concede p (p  Prem(A) or p = Conc(A)) Prakken: example Lc (with reply structure)

  6. Prakken: protocols (basic rules) • Each noninitial move replies to some previous move of hearer • Replying moves must be defined in Lc as a reply to their target • Termination: if player to move has no legal moves • … • Outcome: what is dialogical status of initial move at termination?

  7. Dialogical status of moves • Each move in a dialogue is in or out: • A surrender is out, • An attacker is: • in if surrendered, else: • in iff all its attackers are out • out iff it has an attacker that isin • (An Argue A move is surrendered iff A’s conclusion is conceded)

  8. Functions of dialogical status • Can determine winning • Proponent wins iff at termination the initial claim is in; opponent wins otherwise • Can determine turntaking • Turn shifts if dialogical status of initial move has changed • Immediate response protocols • Can be used in defining relevance

  9. 1:claim(owe $500)

  10. 1:claim(owe $500) 2:why(owe $500)

  11. 1:claim(owe $500) 2:why(owe $500) 4:argue(owe $500 since contract & no payment)

  12. 1:claim(owe $500) 2:why(owe $500) 4:argue(owe $500 since contract & no payment) 5:concede(no payment)

  13. 1:claim(owe $500) 2:why(owe $500) 4:argue(owe $500 since contract & no payment) 6:why(contract) 5:concede(no payment)

  14. 1:claim(owe $500) 2:why(owe $500) 4:argue(owe $500 since contract & no payment) 6:why(contract) 5:concede(no payment) 8:argue(contract since notary’s document & signed by us)

  15. 1:claim(owe $500) 2:why(owe $500) 4:argue(owe $500 since contract & no payment) 6:why(contract) 5:concede(no payment) 8:argue(contract since notary’s document & signed by us) 11:argue(notary’s document since notary’s seal is forged)

  16. 1:claim(owe $500) 2:why(owe $500) 4:argue(owe $500 since contract & no payment) 6:why(contract) 5:concede(no payment) 8:argue(contract since notary’s document & signed by us) 11:argue(notary’s document since notary’s seal is forged) 12:why(notary’s seal is forged)

  17. 1:claim(owe $500) 2:why(owe $500) 13:concede(owe $500)) 4:argue(owe $500 since contract & no payment) 6:why(contract) 5:concede(no payment) 8:argue(contract since notary’s document & signed by us) 11:argue(notary’s document since notary’s seal is forged) 12:why(notary’s seal is forged)

  18. Owe 500 contract no payment Not notary’s doc signed by us notary’s doc seal forged

  19. Prakken: example dialogue P1: claim safe

  20. Prakken: example dialogue P1: claim safe O1: why safe

  21. Prakken: example dialogue P1: claim safe O1: why safe P2: safe since airbag, airbag  safe

  22. Prakken: example dialogue P1: claim safe O1: why safe P2: safe since airbag, airbag  safe O2a: concede airbag

  23. Prakken: example dialogue P1: claim safe O1: why safe P2: safe since airbag, airbag  safe O2b: safe since newspaper, newspaper  safe O2a: concede airbag

  24. Prakken: example dialogue P1: claim safe O1: why safe P2: safe since airbag, airbag  safe O2b: safe since newspaper, newspaper  safe O2a: concede airbag P3a: concede newspaper

  25. Prakken: example dialogue P1: claim safe O1: why safe P2: safe since airbag, airbag  safe O2b: safe since newspaper, newspaper  safe O2a: concede airbag P3b: so whatsince unreliable, unreliable  so what P3a: concede newspaper

  26. Prakken: example dialogue P1: claim safe O1: why safe P2: safe since airbag, airbag  safe O2b: safe since newspaper, newspaper  safe O2a: concede airbag O3: safe since high speed, high speed  safe P3b: so whatsince unreliable, unreliable  so what P3a: concede newspaper

  27. Prakken: example dialogue P1: claim safe O1: why safe P4: retract safe P2: safe since airbag, airbag  safe O2b: safe since newspaper, newspaper  safe O2a: concede airbag O3: safe since high speed, high speed  safe P3b: so whatsince unreliable, unreliable  so what P3a: concede newspaper

  28. claim safe

  29. claim why safe

  30. claim why safe since airbag safe airbag

  31. claim why safe since concede airbag  safe airbag

  32. claim why safe since concede airbag  safe airbag since safe newspaper  safe newspaper

  33. claim why safe since concede airbag  safe airbag since safe newspaper  safe newspaper concede

  34. claim why safe since concede airbag  safe airbag since safe newspaper  safe newspaper concede so what since unreliable  so what unreliable

  35. claim why safe since concede airbag  safe airbag since safe safe since newspaper  safe high speed  safe newspaper high speed concede so what since unreliable  so what unreliable

  36. claim why safe since retract concede airbag  safe airbag since safe safe since newspaper  safe high speed  safe newspaper high speed concede so what since unreliable  so what unreliable

  37. Relevant protocols • A reply must be relevant • An attacking move is relevant if it changes the status of the initial move • A surrendering move is relevant if an attacking counterpart is relevant • (an attacking counterpart replies to the same (part of) move) • The turn shifts if dialogical status of initial move has changed • Immediate response protocols

  38. P1+ O1- P2- P4+ O2- O3+ P3+ Relevant target?

  39. P1+ O1- P2- P4+ O2+ O3+ P3- O4+

  40. P1+ O1- P2- P4+ Relevant target? O2- O3+ P3+

  41. P1- O1+ P2- P4- O2- O3+ O4+ P3+

  42. 1:claim(owe $500) 2:why(owe $500) 4:argue(owe $500 since contract & no payment) 6:why(contract) 5:concede(no payment) 8:argue(contract since notary’s document & signed by us) 11:argue(notary’s document since notary’s seal is forged) What are the relevant targets for ? 12:why(notary’s seal is forged)

  43. 1:claim(owe $500) 2:why(owe $500) 13:concede(owe $500)) 4:argue(owe $500 since contract & no payment) 6:why(contract) 5:concede(no payment) 8:argue(contract since notary’s document & signed by us) 11:argue(notary’s document since notary’s seal is forged) What are the relevant targets for ? 12:why(notary’s seal is forged)

  44. Game for grounded semantics unsound in distributed settings Knowledge bases Inference rules p  q s q r s r, t p Paul: p, r P1: q since p Olga: s, t

  45. Game for grounded semantics unsound in distributed settings Knowledge bases Inference rules p  q s q r s r,t p Paul: p, r P1: q since p Olga: s, t O1: q since s

  46. Game for grounded semantics unsound in distributed settings Knowledge bases Inference rules p  q s q r s r,t p Paul: p, r P1: q since p Olga: s,t, r O1: q since s P2: s since r

  47. Game for grounded semantics unsound in distributed settings Knowledge bases Inference rules p  q s q r s r,t p Paul: p, r P1: q since p Olga: s,t, r O1: q since s P2: s since r O2: p since r,t

  48. Acts Attacked by Surrendered by claim p why p concede p why p Argue A (Conc(A) = p) retract p concede p retract p Argue A Argue B (defeats its target) Why p (p  Prem(A)) concede A concede p (p  Prem(A) or p = Conc(A)) Knowledge bases: Paul: p, r, p ∧r  q, q  s Olga: t, t  p, p q Inference rules: Rd = {,     } Rs = all valid inference rules of prop. l. Find a terminated legal dialogue of five moves with a relevant protocol won by Olga, assuming both are honest No preferences

  49. Winning and logic • A protocol should respect the underlying logic • We want: main claim is in iff it is implied by the current ‘theory’ of the dialogue • (all non-challenged and non-retracted ‘current’ premises) • Ensured in relevant protocols if • No surrenders are moved; and • Arguments cannot be weakened by ‘backwards extending’ • Each argument implied by the current theory has been moved • Current theory = all non-challenged and non-retractred current premises

  50. 1:claim(owe $500) 2:why(owe $500) 13:concede(owe $500)) 4:argue(owe $500 since contract & no payment) 6:why(contract) 5:concede(no payment) 8:argue(contract since notary’s document & signed by us) 11:argue(notary’s document since notary’s seal is forged) 12:why(notary’s seal is forged)

More Related