Hierarchical Argumentation Structure For Persuasive Argumentative Dialogue Generation

Argumentation is a process of reaching a consensus through premises and rebuttals. If an artificial dialogue system can perform argumentation, it can improve users' decisions and ability to negotiate with the others. Previously, researchers have studied argumentative dialogue systems through a structured database regarding argumentation structure and evaluated the logical consistency of the dialogue. However, these systems could not change its response based on the user's agreement or disagreement to its last utterance. Furthermore, the persuasiveness of the generated dialogue has not been evaluated. In this study, a method is proposed to generate persuasive arguments through a hierarchical argumentation structure that considers human agreement and disagreement. Persuasiveness is evaluated through a crowd sourcing platform wherein participants' written impressions of shown dialogue texts are scored via a third person Likert scale evaluation. The proposed method was compared to the baseline method wherein argument response texts were generated without consideration of the user's agreement or disagreement. Experiment results suggest that the proposed method can generate a more persuasive dialogue than the baseline method. Further analysis implied that perceived persuasiveness was induced by evaluations of the behavior of the dialogue system, which was inherent in the hierarchical argumentation structure.