Testing the Benefits of Structured Argumentation in Multi-Agent Deliberation Dialogues

Abstract

Work on argumentation-based dialogue systems often assumes that the adoption of argumentation leads to improved dialogue efficiency and effectiveness. Several studies have taken an experimental approach to prove these alleged benefits, but none has yet supported the expressiveness of a structured argumentation logic. This paper shows how the use of argumentation in deliberation style dialogues can be tested while supporting goal-based agents that use the ASPIC framework for structured argumentation. It is experimentally shown that employing an arguing strategy increases the effectiveness over a non-argumentative strategy.