Investigating Stories in a Formal Dialogue Game

In this paper we propose a formal dialogue game in which two players aim to determine the best explanation for a set of observations. By assuming an adversarial setting, we force the players to advance and improve their own explanations as well as criticize their opponent's explanations, thus hopefully preventing the well-known problem of 'tunnel vision'. A main novelty of our approach is that the game supports the combination of argumentation with abductive inference to the best explanation.

[1]  Floris Bex,et al.  Sense-Making Software for Crime Investigation: How to Combine Stories and Arguments? , 2007 .

[2]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities , 1997, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[3]  J. Pollock.  Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person , 1995 .

[4]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation , 2005, J. Log. Comput..

[5]  N. Pennington,et al.  The story model for juror decision making , 1993 .

[6]  R. Hastie.  Inside the juror: Models of juror decision making , 1993 .

[7]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Henry Prakken,et al.  AVERs: an argument visualization tool for representing stories about evidence , 2007, ICAIL.

[9]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Reinterpreting arguments in dialogue : an application to evidential reasoning , 2004 .

[10]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[11]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Bayesian Networks , 1998, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining. 2nd Ed..

[12]  Paul Thagard,et al.  CAUSAL INFERENCE IN LEGAL DECISION MAKING: EXPLANATORY COHERENCE VS. BAYESIAN NETWORKS , 2004, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[13]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures , 1978 .

[14]  Ronald Prescott Loui,et al.  Process and Policy: Resource‐Bounded NonDemonstrative Reasoning , 1998, Comput. Intell..

[15]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment In Dialogue , 1995 .

[16]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[17]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning , 1995 .

[18]  Simon Parsons,et al.  An Application of Formal Argumentation: Fusing Bayes Nets in MAS , 2006, COMMA.

[19]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Formalising argumentative story-based analysis of evidence , 2007, ICAIL.

[20]  Peter Lucas,et al.  Symbolic diagnosis and its formalisation , 1997, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[21]  H. Crombag,et al.  Anchored Narratives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence , 1994 .

[22]  P. J. van Koppen,et al.  Rechercheportret: Over dilemma's in de opsporing. , 2004 .