Calculating the strength of rhetorical arguments in persuasive negotiation dialogues

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
<record>
<leader>00000cab a2200000 4500</leader>
<controlfield tag="001">MAP20210011733</controlfield>
<controlfield tag="003">MAP</controlfield>
<controlfield tag="005">20210429141003.0</controlfield>
<controlfield tag="008">210413e20210215esp|||p |0|||b|spa d</controlfield>
<datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
<subfield code="a">MAP</subfield>
<subfield code="b">spa</subfield>
<subfield code="d">MAP</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
<subfield code="a">922.134</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
<subfield code="0">MAPA20210005619</subfield>
<subfield code="a">Morveli-Espinoza, Mariela</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
<subfield code="a">Calculating the strength of rhetorical arguments in persuasive negotiation dialogues</subfield>
<subfield code="c">Mariela Morveli-Espinoza</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
<subfield code="a">Rhetorical arguments are used in negotiation dialogues when a proponent agent tries to persuade his opponent to accept a proposal more readily. When more than one argument is generated, the proponent must compare them in order to select the most adequate for his interests. A way of comparing them is by means of their strength values. Related work propose a calculation based only on the components of the rhetorical arguments, i.e., the importance of the opponent's goal and the certainty level of the beliefs that make up the argument. This work aims to propose a model for the calculation of the strength of rhetorical arguments, which is inspired on the pre-conditions of credibility and preferability stated by Guerini and astelfranchi. Thus, we suggest the use of two new criteria to the strength calculation: the credibility of the proponent and the status of the opponent's goal in the goal processing cycle. The model is impirically evaluated and the results demonstrate that the proposed model is more ecient than previous works in terms of number of exchanged arguments and number of reached agreements. </subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
<subfield code="0">MAPA20080611200</subfield>
<subfield code="a">Inteligencia artificial</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
<subfield code="0">MAPA20080660772</subfield>
<subfield code="a">Continuidad de negocio</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
<subfield code="0">MAPA20080586454</subfield>
<subfield code="a">Modelos analíticos</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
<subfield code="w">MAP20200034445</subfield>
<subfield code="t">Revista Iberoamericana de Inteligencia Artificial</subfield>
<subfield code="d">IBERAMIA, Sociedad Iberoamericana de Inteligencia Artificial , 2018-</subfield>
<subfield code="x">1988-3064</subfield>
<subfield code="g">15/02/2021 Volumen 24 Número 67 - febrero 2021 , p. 36-39</subfield>
</datafield>
<datafield tag="856" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
<subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield>
<subfield code="w">1110630</subfield>
<subfield code="y">Recurso electrónico / Electronic resource</subfield>
</datafield>
</record>
</collection>