Empirical Evaluation of Strategies for Multiparty Argumentative Debates - Archive ouverte HAL Accéder directement au contenu
Communication Dans Un Congrès Année : 2014

Empirical Evaluation of Strategies for Multiparty Argumentative Debates

Elise Bonzon
Nicolas Maudet
Pavlos Moraitis
  • Fonction : Auteur
  • PersonId : 1014194

Résumé

Debating agents have often different areas of expertise and conflicting opinions on the subjects under discussion. They are faced with the problem of deciding how to contribute to the current state of the debate in order to satisfy their personal goals. We focus on target sets, that specify minimal changes on the current state of the debate allowing agents to satisfy their goals, where changes are the addition and/or deletion of attacks among arguments. In this paper, we experimentally test a number of strategies based on target sets, and we evaluate them with respect to different criteria, as the length of the debate, the happiness of the agents, and the rationality of the result.
Fichier principal
Vignette du fichier
clima.pdf (376.71 Ko) Télécharger le fichier
Origine : Fichiers produits par l'(les) auteur(s)
Loading...

Dates et versions

hal-01523774 , version 1 (16-05-2017)

Identifiants

Citer

Dionysios Kontarinis, Elise Bonzon, Nicolas Maudet, Pavlos Moraitis. Empirical Evaluation of Strategies for Multiparty Argumentative Debates. 15th International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA'14), Aug 2014, Prague, Czech Republic. pp.105 - 122, ⟨10.1007/978-3-319-09764-0_7⟩. ⟨hal-01523774⟩
63 Consultations
107 Téléchargements

Altmetric

Partager

Gmail Facebook X LinkedIn More