Strategic Argumentation Dialogues for Persuasion: Framework and Experiments Based on Modelling the Beliefs and Concerns of the Persuadee
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Persuasion is an important and yet complex aspect of human intelligence. When undertaken through dialogue, the deployment of good arguments, and therefore counterarguments, clearly has a significant effect on the ability to be successful in persuasion. Two key dimensions for determining whether an argument is good in a particular dialogue are the degree to which the intended audience believes the argument and counterarguments, and the impact that the argument has on the concerns of the intended audience. In this paper, we present a framework for modelling persuadees in terms of their beliefs and concerns, and for harnessing these models in optimizing the choice of move in persuasion dialogues. Our approach is based on the Monte Carlo Tree Search which allows optimization in real-time. We provide empirical results of a study with human participants showing that our automated persuasion system based on this technology is superior to a baseline system that does not take the beliefs and concerns into account in its strategy.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 114 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jan 2021.
Builds on
11 of 114 references.
References · 11
- 2016Winning Arguments: Interaction Dynamics and Persuasion Strategies in Good-faith Online Discussionscited by 110
- 2017Argument Strength is in the Eye of the Beholder: Audience Effects in Persuasioncited by 35
- 2016A Comparative Study of Ranking-based Semantics for Abstract Argumentationcited by 15
- 2018Epistemic Graphs for Representing and Reasoning with Positive and Negative Influences of Argumentscited by 14
- 2017Empirical Evaluation of Abstract Argumentation: Supporting the Need for Bipolar and Probabilistic Approachescited by 9
- 2018Argument Harvesting Using Chatbotscited by 2
- 2018Optimization of Information-Seeking Dialogue Strategy for Argumentation-Based Dialogue Systemcited by 2
- 2019Impact of Argument Type and Concerns in Argumentation with a Chatbotcited by 2
- 2018Domain Modelling in Computational Persuasion for Behaviour Change in Healthcarecited by 1
- 2018A Polynomial-time Fragment of Epistemic Probabilistic Argumentation (Technical Report)cited by 1
- 2019Polynomial-time Updates of Epistemic States in a Fragment of Probabilistic Epistemic Argumentation (Technical Report)cited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 4; 2025: 0; 2026: 2.
7 papers.
- 2024Computational Argumentation-based Chatbots: a Surveycited by 5
- 2024Persuasion Games using Large Language Modelscited by 4
- 2024A Methodology for Incompleteness-Tolerant and Modular Gradual Semantics for Argumentative Statement Graphscited by 3
- 2023Fostering User Engagement in the Critical Reflection of Argumentscited by 1
- 2026Reflecti-Mate: A Conversational Agent for Adaptive Decision-Making Support Through System 1 and System 2 Thinkingcited by 1
- 2024A Chatbot for Asylum-Seeking Migrants in Europecited by 0
- 2026Splitting Assumption-Based Argumentation Frameworkscited by 0
- 2026Reflecti-Mate: A Conversational Agent for Adaptive Decision-Making Support Through System 1 and System 2 Thinking21 May 2026
- 2026Splitting Assumption-Based Argumentation Frameworks30 Apr 2026
- 2024A Methodology for Incompleteness-Tolerant and Modular Gradual Semantics for Argumentative Statement Graphs29 Oct 2024
- 2024Persuasion Games using Large Language Models28 Aug 2024
- 2024A Chatbot for Asylum-Seeking Migrants in Europe12 Jul 2024
- 2024Computational Argumentation-based Chatbots: a Survey7 Jan 2024
- 2023Fostering User Engagement in the Critical Reflection of Arguments17 Aug 2023