Hadoux, Emmanuel, Hunter, Anthony and Polberg, Sylwia ![]() ![]() |
Preview |
PDF
- Accepted Post-Print Version
Download (210kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Proposals for strategies for dialogical argumentation often focus on situations where one of the agents wins the dialogue and the other agent loses. Yet in real-world argumentation, it is common for agents to not involve such zero-sum situations. Rather, the agents may enter into a dialogue with divergent but not necessarily opposing views on what is important in the outcomes from the argumentation. In order to model this kind of situation, we investigate a decision-theoretic approach that allows different participants to have different utility evaluations of a dialogue, and for the proponent to model the opponent's utility evaluation in order to optimize the choice of move in the dialogue.
Item Type: | Conference or Workshop Item (Paper) |
---|---|
Status: | Published |
Schools: | Computer Science & Informatics |
Publisher: | IOS |
ISBN: | 978-1-61499-905-8 |
Date of First Compliant Deposit: | 1 April 2019 |
Date of Acceptance: | 25 June 2018 |
Last Modified: | 25 Oct 2022 13:58 |
URI: | https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/121307 |
Citation Data
Cited 1 time in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data
Actions (repository staff only)
![]() |
Edit Item |