TL;DR
This paper introduces a natural-language agent-based model of argumentation that simulates collective deliberation, revealing how active contribution generation influences opinion dynamics and polarization.
Contribution
It presents a novel natural-language ABMA using neural language models to simulate argumentation and tests the impact of active contribution on deliberation dynamics.
Findings
Passive agents exhibit polarization due to confirmation bias and homophily.
Active contribution generation shifts the conversation dynamics based on agent properties.
The model highlights the importance of argument creation in collective deliberation.
Abstract
This paper develops a natural-language agent-based model of argumentation (ABMA). Its artificial deliberative agents (ADAs) are constructed with the help of so-called neural language models recently developed in AI and computational linguistics. ADAs are equipped with a minimalist belief system and may generate and submit novel contributions to a conversation. The natural-language ABMA allows us to simulate collective deliberation in English, i.e. with arguments, reasons, and claims themselves -- rather than with their mathematical representations (as in formal models). This paper uses the natural-language ABMA to test the robustness of formal reason-balancing models of argumentation [Maes & Flache 2013, Singer et al. 2019]: First of all, as long as ADAs remain passive, confirmation bias and homophily updating trigger polarization, which is consistent with results from formal models.…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
