Automated persuasion systems (APS) aim to persuade a user to believe something by entering into a dialogue in which arguments and counterarguments are exchanged. To maximize the probability that an APS is successful in persuading a user, it can identify a global policy that will allow it to select the best arguments it presents at each stage of the dialogue whatever arguments the user presents. However, in real applications, such as for healthcare, it is unlikely the utility of the outcome of the dialogue will be the same, or the exact opposite, for the APS and user. In order to deal with this situation, games in extended form have been harnessed for argumentation in Bi-party Decision Theory. This opens new problems that we address in this paper: (1) How can we use Machine Learning (ML) methods to predict utility functions for different subpopulations of users? and (2) How can we identify for a new user the best utility function from amongst those that we have learned? To this extent, we develop two ML methods, EAI and EDS, that leverage information coming from the users to predict their utilities. EAI is restricted to a fixed amount of information, whereas EDS can choose the information that best detects the subpopulations of a user. We evaluate EAI and EDS in a simulation setting and in a realistic case study concerning healthy eating habits. Results are promising in both cases, but EDS is more effective at predicting useful utility functions.
翻译:自动化说服系统(APS)旨在说服用户相信某事,为此应开展对话,交换论点和反驳论点; 为了最大限度地提高APS成功说服用户的可能性,它可以确定一项全球政策,使其能够在对话的每个阶段选择它提出的最佳论据,无论用户提出何种论点; 然而,在实际应用中,例如保健方面,对话的结果不太可能对APS和用户产生相同或正好相反的效用; 为了处理这种情况,已经利用了扩大形式的游戏,在双党决定理论中进行论证。这打开了我们在本文中处理的新问题:(1) 我们如何利用机器学习(ML)方法来预测不同用户子群的效用功能?和(2) 在我们学到的那些应用中,我们如何为新用户确定最佳的效用功能? 就此,我们开发了两种ML方法,即EAI和EDS, 利用用户提供的信息预测其公用事业。 EAI限于固定数量的信息,而EDS在现实化研究中,用户的EDS A 选择了一种有希望的 EDS 。