A model for a motivational

system grounded on value

based abstract
argumentation frameworks
Eugenio Di Tullio
University of Bari
Italy
Floriana Grasso
University of Liverpool
UK

The problem
Digital interventions to promote healthy
lifestyles
More successful if grounded in robust
behavioural theory
Variety of techniques to impact different stages
of the planning process
Use of different styles of interaction

New insights from recent research areas in

AI:
Persuasion technology
Argumentation Theory

Argument & Computation

Over the last decade a core and autonomous
discipline within AI, as opposed to permeating
reasoning research
Emphasis on what persuades, not proofs
Hypothesis that the extent of acceptance is
subjective, depending on the view of the audience

Crucial aspect within practical reasoning, as

opposed to theoretical reasoning
Presumptive schemata
Embraced by recent research in MultiAgent
Systems

Application areas
Multi-agent dialogue interactions
E.g. negotiation scenarios

Legal reasoning
E.g. tools to model and support case-based
reasoning

Healthcare advice
E.g. changing attitudes to healthy eating

Medical treatment
E.g. automated argument over organ transplants

Finance
E.g. automated stock market exchanges/contract

Directions of
research
Abstract argument systems: formal
exploitation of simple notions of attack
and defense.
Logics for argumentation: formal models
for automated reasoning.
Dialogue protocols: emphasis on the rules
that should govern the argumentation
process and the participants to it.
Argument schemes: stereotypical patterns
for presumptive reasoning, fallacies.

Abstract
Argumentation
An argumentation
framework (AF) is a
pair
F = (A, R) where
A is a set of arguments
R A A is a relation
representing attacks
or defeats.
Different semantics to
establish which
arguments are in
and which are out.

Transtheoretical model of
change

Motivational
dialogues
A subclass of argumentative
dialogues
Main feature: a discussion around a
behaviour, and the considerations of
pros and cons of such behaviour
Cant be based on facts only
Highly entrenched in the value system
of the parties engaging in the discussion
There is no right or wrong answer
things change when perspectives
change

Example
A1: You should exercise twice a week because it
improves your health.
B2: Why is it good for my health?
A3: Because exercise improves your stamina.
B4: But then I might as well go to work by bike.
A5: No, exercising is better for your health.
B6: But exercise is boring.
A7: What is more important: your health or having
fun?
B8: I find my health is more important. I guess I
should exercise.
(from van der Weide et al 2010 Practical Reasoning Using Values)

Practical Reasoning on
Values and Perspectives
Values: desirable trans-situational goals,
varying in importance, that serve as guiding
principles in the life of a person or other social
entity
Schwartz,S, Advances in experimental social psychology 25 (1992)

Value Based Argumentation Framework (VAF)

(Bench-Capon et al, Argumentation Research Group, University of Liverpool)

Tuple <AR, attack, V, val, P>

AR set of arguments; attacks relation on AR, V set of
values, val function mapping from AR to V P set of
possible audiences.
An argument relates to value v if accepting it
promotes or defends v.

Practical Reasoning on
Values and Perspectives -ctd
Values are discussed in terms of what
condition promotes or demotes them
E.g. treating people the same promotes the
value of equality, exercising promotes the value
of being healthy

Conditions and values can be promoted in

degrees
Not exercising is not healthy, exercising once a
month is healthier, once a week is healthier still

Perspective: preorder on states representing

a topic for discussion (e.g. health, fun)

Practical Reasoning on
Values and Perspectives -ctd
Perspectives can positively or
negatively influence other perspectives
forming chains
(E.g. health positively influence wellbeing)

When an agent has a preference over a

perspective, this perspective becomes a value
used as a guiding principle by the agent
agent will try to reach as state maximally preferred
from that perspective

Example
Health, Fun and
Conformity
perspectives are also
values

Exercise
perspective is
not a value, but
influences
values

(from van der Weide et al 2010 Practical Reasoning Using Values)

Motivational System
Ultimate aim:
Build an environment for digital
interventions, based on motivational
dialogues
Authoring tools for creating user
profiling, communication
plans/strategies, styles of interaction
Mobile technology to acquire users
preferences and lifestyles
Centred around the notion of Value
System

Prototype implementation
A prototype built on top of Aspic
(Argumentation Service Platform with
Integrated Components - 6FP - Opensource)
A platform to manage argumentation dialogues, which
also provides services like reasoning, decision-making,
learning.

Concentrates on the managing of the value

system and the practical reasoning on
perspectives
Left aside: users profiling and behavioural strategy
implementation

System architecture

Value System Ontology

Managing values
Two value systems are maintained
For the user and for the system
Typical for dialogue systems representing mutual
beliefs

Interaction driven by a plan or strategy based

on the users behavioural profiling (e.g.
Transtheoretical model)
E.g. topic of discussion based on the stage of change

System attempts to utilise users own beliefs

and value system to maximise motivation
impact

Example
The system contains the states:
1. Eating junk food less than 4 times a month;
2. Eating junk food between 4 and 8 times a month;
3. Eating junk food more than 8 times a month

And the perspectives to evaluate the

states are Healthy eating; Fitness;
Health; Social life
Initial value systems are:

Evaluation of
Transition A

System attempts to make user

aware of influences which could
impact the evaluation of transition A

New evaluation of A
New connections

Screenshot

Conclusions
Preliminary work towards an argumentation
based motivational system
Attempt to combine insights from
argumentation theory and behavioural
theories
Still prototypical: need to include more
reliable user model and full blown
communication strategies
Adherence to standards (e.g. Aspic) looks
beneficial in terms of cross-discipline
evaluation