argumentation frameworks

8/16/2019 Argumentation frameworks

1/23

A model for a motivationalsystem grounded on value

based abstractargumentation frameworks

Eugenio Di TullioUniversity of Bari

Italy

Floriana Grasso

University of Liverool

U!


2/23

T"e roblem

• Digital interventions to romote "ealt"ylifestyles

• #ore successful if grounded in robustbe"avioural t"eory – $ariety of tec"ni%ues to imact di&erent stages

of t"e lanning rocess

– Use of di&erent styles of interaction

•

'ew insig"ts from recent researc" areas inAI( – )ersuasion tec"nology

– Argumentation T"eory


3/23

Argument * +omutation

• ,ver t"e last decade a core and autonomousdisciline wit"in AI- as oosed to ermeating

reasoning researc"

– Em"asis on w"at ersuades- not roofs

– .yot"esis t"at t"e e/tent of accetance issub0ective- deending on t"e view of t"e audience

• +rucial asect wit"in ractical reasoning- asoosed to t"eoretical reasoning

– )resumtive sc"emata

– Embraced by recent researc" in #ultiAgent1ystems


4/23

Alication areas

• #ulti2agent dialogue interactions – E3g3 negotiation scenarios

• Legal reasoning

– E3g3 tools to model and suort case2based

reasoning

• .ealt"care advice

– E3g3 c"anging attitudes to "ealt"y eating

• #edical treatment

– E3g3 automated argument over organ translants

• Finance

– E3g3 automated stock market e/c"anges4contract


5/23

Directions ofresearc"• Abstract argument systems( formal

e/loitation of simle notions of 5attack6and 5defense63

•

Logics for argumentation( formal modelsfor automated reasoning3

• Dialogue rotocols( em"asis on t"e rulest"at s"ould govern t"e argumentation

rocess and t"e articiants to it3• Argument sc"emes( stereotyical atterns

for resumtive reasoning- fallacies3


6/23

AbstractArgumentationAn argumentationframework 7AF8 is aair

F 9 7A- :8 w"ere

A is a set of arguments: ; A < A is a relationreresenting 5attacks6or 5defeats63

Di&erent semantics toestablis" w"ic"arguments are 5in6and w"ic" are 5out63


7/23

Transt"eoretical model ofc"ange


8/23

#otivationaldialogues• A subclass of argumentative

dialogues

• #ain feature( a discussion around a

be"aviour- and t"e considerations ofros and cons of suc" be"aviour – +an=t be based on 5facts6 only

–.ig"ly entrenc"ed in t"e 5value system6of t"e arties engaging in t"e discussion

– T"ere is no rig"t or wrong answer >t"ings c"ange w"en ersectivesc"ange


9/23

E/amle

A?( @ou s"ould e/ercise twice a week because itimroves your "ealt"3

B( "y is it good for my "ealt"C

A( Because e/ercise imroves your stamina3

B( But t"en I mig"t as well go to work by bike3A( 'o- e/ercising is better for your "ealt"3

B( But e/ercise is boring3

AH( "at is more imortant( your "ealt" or "aving

funCB( I Jnd my "ealt" is more imortant3 I guess Is"ould e/ercise3

7from van der eide et al K?K 5)ractical :easoning Using $alues68


10/23

)ractical :easoning on$alues and )ersectives

• $alues( “desirable trans-situational goals,varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in the life of a person or other socialentity”

1c"wart-1- Advances in e/erimental social syc"ology 7?MM8

• $alue Based Argumentation Framework 7$AF87Benc"2+aon et al- Argumentation :esearc" Grou- University of Liverool8

– Tule


11/23

• $alues are discussed in terms of w"atcondition romotes or demotes t"em – E3g3 treating eole t"e same romotes t"e

value of e%uality- e/ercising romotes t"e value

of being "ealt"y

• +onditions and values can be romoted indegrees – 'ot e/ercising is not "ealt"y- e/ercising once a

mont" is "ealt"ier- once a week is "ealt"ier still

• )ersective( reorder on states reresentinga 5toic6 for discussion 7e3g3 "ealt"- fun8

)ractical :easoning on$alues and )ersectives 2ctd


12/23

•

)ersectives can ositively ornegatively inOuence ot"er ersectivesforming c"ains – 7E3g3 "ealt" ositively inOuence wellbeing8

)ractical :easoning on$alues and )ersectives 2ctd

• "en an agent "as a 5reference6 over a

ersective- t"is ersective becomes a 5value6 – used as a 5guiding rincile6 by t"e agent

– agent will try to reac" as state ma/imally referredfrom t"at ersective


13/23

E/amle

7from van der eide et al K?K 5)ractical :easoning Using $alues68

.ealt"- Fun and+onformityersectives are alsovalues

E/erciseersective isnot a value- butinOuencesvalues


14/23

#otivational 1ystem

• Ultimate aim( – Build an environment for digital

interventions- based on motivational

dialogues – Aut"oring tools for creating user

roJling- communicationlans4strategies- styles of interaction

– #obile tec"nology to ac%uire user=sreferences and lifestyles

– +entred around t"e notion of 5$alue

1ystem6


15/23

)rototye imlementation

• A rototye built on to of Asic7Argumentation 1ervice )latform wit"Integrated +omonents 2 F) 2 ,ensource8 – A latform to manage argumentation dialogues- w"ic"

also rovides services like reasoning- decision2making-learning3

• +oncentrates on t"e managing of t"e valuesystem and t"e ractical reasoning on

ersectives – Left aside( user=s roJling and be"avioural strategy

imlementation


16/23

1ystem arc"itecture


17/23

$alue 1ystem ,ntology


18/23

#anaging values

• Two value systems are maintained – For t"e user and for 5t"e system6

– Tyical for dialogue systems reresenting 5mutual6beliefs

• Interaction driven by a lan or 5strategy6 basedon t"e user=s be"avioural roJling 7e3g3

Transt"eoretical model8

– E3g3 toic of discussion based on t"e stage of c"ange

• 1ystem attemts to 5utilise6 user=s own beliefsand value system to ma/imise motivationimact


19/23

E/amle

• T"e system contains t"e states(?3 Eating 0unk food less t"an times a mont"N

3 Eating 0unk food between and times a mont"N

3 Eating 0unk food more t"an times a mont"

• And t"e ersectives to evaluate t"estates are .ealt"y eatingN FitnessN.ealt"N 1ocial life

• Initial value systems are(

E l ti f


20/23

Evaluation of Transition A

• 1ystem attemts to make user5aware6 of inOuences w"ic" could

imact t"e evaluation of transition A


21/23

'ew evaluation of A

'ew connections


22/23

1creens"ot


23/23

+onclusions

• )reliminary work towards an argumentationbased motivational system

• Attemt to combine insig"ts fromargumentation t"eory and be"avioural

t"eories

• 1till rototyical( need to include morereliable user model and full blowncommunication strategies

• Ad"erence to standards 7e3g3 Asic8 looksbeneJcial in terms of cross2discilineevaluation

argumentation frameworks

Documents