{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013333333333333334, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.310924369747899, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Analysis of empirical results on argumentation-based dialogue to support shared decision making in a human-robot team

This paper reports on a study conducted with human-robot teams in which computational argumentation-based dialogue was implemented as part of a framework designed to support collaborative decision making. The focus here is on detailed analysis of how argumentation-based dialogue was employed during the study, illustrating ways in which this type of dialogue impacted how users engaged with the robot. The analysis demonstrates that users took advantage of the capability and reached shared decisions as a result of exchanging information with the robot and coming to agreement about robot actions and the team's task environment.