Arguing from similar positions: an empirical analysis

Josh Murphy; Elizabeth Black; Michael Mordechai Luck

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_11

Arguing from similar positions: an empirical analysis

Josh Murphy, Elizabeth Black, Michael Mordechai Luck

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference paper › peer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

177 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Argument-based deliberation dialogues are an important mechanism
in the study of agent coordination, allowing agents to exchange formal arguments
to reach an agreement for action. Agents participating in a deliberation dialogue
may begin the dialogue with very similar sets of arguments to one another, or they
may start the dialogue with disjoint sets of arguments, or some middle ground. In
this paper, we empirically investigate whether the similarity of agents’ arguments
affects the dialogue outcome. Our results show that agents that have similar sets of
initially known arguments are less likely to reach an agreement through dialogue
than those that have dissimilar sets of initially known arguments.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation
Subtitle of host publication	Third International Workshop, TAFA 2015, Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 25-26, 2015, Revised selected papers
Publisher	Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Pages	177-193
Volume	LNAI 9524
ISBN (Electronic)	9783319284606
ISBN (Print)	9783319284590
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_11
Publication status	Published - 7 Jan 2016

Access to Document

10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_11

murphy_black_luck_tafa2015
Author may self-archive an author-created version of his/her Contribution on his/her own website and/or the repository of Author’s department or faculty. Author may also deposit this version on his/her funder’s or funder’s designated repository at the funder’s request or as a result of a legal obligation. He/she may not use the publisher’s PDF version, which is posted on SpringerLink and other Springer websites, for the purpose of self-archiving or deposit. Furthermore, Author may only post his/her own version, provided acknowledgment is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer’s website. The link must be provided by inserting the DOI number of the article in the following sentence: "The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/[insert DOI]". The DOI (Digital Object Identifier) can be found at the bottom of the first page of the published paper
Accepted author manuscript, 787 KB

Cite this

@inbook{5e978aab22664dd48c324e06b424d5b3,

title = "Arguing from similar positions: an empirical analysis",

abstract = "Argument-based deliberation dialogues are an important mechanismin the study of agent coordination, allowing agents to exchange formal argumentsto reach an agreement for action. Agents participating in a deliberation dialoguemay begin the dialogue with very similar sets of arguments to one another, or theymay start the dialogue with disjoint sets of arguments, or some middle ground. Inthis paper, we empirically investigate whether the similarity of agents{\textquoteright} argumentsaffects the dialogue outcome. Our results show that agents that have similar sets ofinitially known arguments are less likely to reach an agreement through dialoguethan those that have dissimilar sets of initially known arguments.",

author = "Josh Murphy and Elizabeth Black and Luck, {Michael Mordechai}",

note = "The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_11",

year = "2016",

month = jan,

day = "7",

doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_11",

language = "English",

isbn = "9783319284590",

volume = "LNAI 9524",

pages = "177--193",

booktitle = "Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation",

publisher = "Springer Berlin Heidelberg",

}

Arguing from similar positions: an empirical analysis. / Murphy, Josh ; Black, Elizabeth ; Luck, Michael Mordechai.
Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation: Third International Workshop, TAFA 2015, Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 25-26, 2015, Revised selected papers. Vol. LNAI 9524 Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2016. p. 177-193.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference paper › peer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Arguing from similar positions: an empirical analysis

AU - Murphy, Josh

AU - Black, Elizabeth

AU - Luck, Michael Mordechai

N1 - The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_11

PY - 2016/1/7

Y1 - 2016/1/7

N2 - Argument-based deliberation dialogues are an important mechanismin the study of agent coordination, allowing agents to exchange formal argumentsto reach an agreement for action. Agents participating in a deliberation dialoguemay begin the dialogue with very similar sets of arguments to one another, or theymay start the dialogue with disjoint sets of arguments, or some middle ground. Inthis paper, we empirically investigate whether the similarity of agents’ argumentsaffects the dialogue outcome. Our results show that agents that have similar sets ofinitially known arguments are less likely to reach an agreement through dialoguethan those that have dissimilar sets of initially known arguments.

AB - Argument-based deliberation dialogues are an important mechanismin the study of agent coordination, allowing agents to exchange formal argumentsto reach an agreement for action. Agents participating in a deliberation dialoguemay begin the dialogue with very similar sets of arguments to one another, or theymay start the dialogue with disjoint sets of arguments, or some middle ground. Inthis paper, we empirically investigate whether the similarity of agents’ argumentsaffects the dialogue outcome. Our results show that agents that have similar sets ofinitially known arguments are less likely to reach an agreement through dialoguethan those that have dissimilar sets of initially known arguments.

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_11

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_11

M3 - Conference paper

SN - 9783319284590

VL - LNAI 9524

SP - 177

EP - 193

BT - Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation

PB - Springer Berlin Heidelberg

ER -

Arguing from similar positions: an empirical analysis

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this