Linguistics-based dialogue simulations to evaluate argumentative conversational recommender systems

Conversational recommender systems aim at recommending the most relevant information for users based on textual or spoken dialogues, through which users can communicate their preferences to the system more efficiently. Argumentative conversational recommender systems represent a kind of deliberation dialogue in which participants share their specific beliefs in the respective representations of the common ground, to act towards a common goal. The goal of such systems is to present appropriate supporting arguments to their recommendations to show the interlocutor that a specific item corresponds to their manifested interests. Here, we present a cross-disciplinary argumentation-based conversational recommender model based on cognitive pragmatics. We also present a dialogue simulator to investigate the quality of the theoretical background. We produced a set of synthetic dialogues based on a computational model implementing the linguistic theory and we collected human evaluations about the plausibility and efficiency of these dialogues. Our results show that the synthetic dialogues obtain high scores concerning their naturalness and the selection of the supporting arguments.