Patients' and health professionals' views on primary care for people with serious mental illness : focus group study

Objective To explore the experience of providing and receiving primary care from the perspectives of primary care health professionals and patients with serious mental illness respectively. Design Qualitative study consisting of six patient groups, six health professional groups, and six combined focus groups. Setting Six primary care trusts in the West Midlands. Participants Forty five patients with serious mental illness, 39 general practitioners (GPs), and eight practice nurses. Results Most health professionals felt that the care of people with serious mental illness was too specialised for primary care. However, most patients viewed primary care as the cornerstone of their health care and prefer-red to consult their own GP, who listened and was willing to learn, rather than be referred to a different,GP with specific mental health knowledge. Swift access was important to patients, with barriers created by the effects of the illness and the noisy or crowded waiting area. Some patients described how they exaggerated symptoms ("acted up") to negotiate an urgent appointment, a strategy that was also employed by some GPs to facilitate admission to secondary care. Most participants felt that structured reviews of care had value. However, whereas health professionals perceived serious mental illness as a lifelong condition, patients emphasised the importance of optimism in treatment and hope for recovery. Conclusions Primary care is of central importance to people with serious mental illness. The challenge for health professionals and patients is to create a system in which patients can see a health professional when they want to without needing to exaggerate their symptoms. The importance that patients attach to optimism in treatment, continuity of care, and listening skills compared with specific mental health knowledge should encourage health professionals in primary care to play a greater role in the care of patients with serious mental illness

Achieving descriptive accuracy in explanations via argumentation: the case of probabilistic classifiers

The pursuit of trust in and fairness of AI systems in order to enable human-centric goals has been gathering pace of late, often supported by the use of explanations for the outputs of these systems. Several properties of explanations have been highlighted as critical for achieving trustworthy and fair AI systems, but one that has thus far been overlooked is that of descriptive accuracy (DA), i.e., that the explanation contents are in correspondence with the internal working of the explained system. Indeed, the violation of this core property would lead to the paradoxical situation of systems producing explanations which are not suitably related to how the system actually works: clearly this may hinder user trust. Further, if explanations violate DA then they can be deceitful, resulting in an unfair behavior toward the users. Crucial as the DA property appears to be, it has been somehow overlooked in the XAI literature to date. To address this problem, we consider the questions of formalizing DA and of analyzing its satisfaction by explanation methods. We provide formal definitions of naive, structural and dialectical DA, using the family of probabilistic classifiers as the context for our analysis. We evaluate the satisfaction of our given notions of DA by several explanation methods, amounting to two popular feature-attribution methods from the literature, variants thereof and a novel form of explanation that we propose. We conduct experiments with a varied selection of concrete probabilistic classifiers and highlight the importance, with a user study, of our most demanding notion of dialectical DA, which our novel method satisfies by design and others may violate. We thus demonstrate how DA could be a critical component in achieving trustworthy and fair systems, in line with the principles of human-centric AI

Computational Argumentation for the Automatic Analysis of Argumentative Discourse and Human Persuasion

Tesis por compendio[ES] La argumentación computacional es el área de investigación que estudia y analiza el uso de distintas técnicas y algoritmos que aproximan el razonamiento argumentativo humano desde un punto de vista computacional. En esta tesis doctoral se estudia el uso de distintas técnicas propuestas bajo el marco de la argumentación computacional para realizar un análisis automático del discurso argumentativo, y para desarrollar técnicas de persuasión computacional basadas en argumentos. Con estos objetivos, en primer lugar se presenta una completa revisión del estado del arte y se propone una clasificación de los trabajos existentes en el área de la argumentación computacional. Esta revisión nos permite contextualizar y entender la investigación previa de forma más clara desde la perspectiva humana del razonamiento argumentativo, así como identificar las principales limitaciones y futuras tendencias de la investigación realizada en argumentación computacional. En segundo lugar, con el objetivo de solucionar algunas de estas limitaciones, se ha creado y descrito un nuevo conjunto de datos que permite abordar nuevos retos y investigar problemas previamente inabordables (e.g., evaluación automática de debates orales). Conjuntamente con estos datos, se propone un nuevo sistema para la extracción automática de argumentos y se realiza el análisis comparativo de distintas técnicas para esta misma tarea. Además, se propone un nuevo algoritmo para la evaluación automática de debates argumentativos y se prueba con debates humanos reales. Finalmente, en tercer lugar se presentan una serie de estudios y propuestas para mejorar la capacidad persuasiva de sistemas de argumentación computacionales en la interacción con usuarios humanos. De esta forma, en esta tesis se presentan avances en cada una de las partes principales del proceso de argumentación computacional (i.e., extracción automática de argumentos, representación del conocimiento y razonamiento basados en argumentos, e interacción humano-computador basada en argumentos), así como se proponen algunos de los cimientos esenciales para el análisis automático completo de discursos argumentativos en lenguaje natural.[CA] L'argumentació computacional és l'àrea de recerca que estudia i analitza l'ús de distintes tècniques i algoritmes que aproximen el raonament argumentatiu humà des d'un punt de vista computacional. En aquesta tesi doctoral s'estudia l'ús de distintes tècniques proposades sota el marc de l'argumentació computacional per a realitzar una anàlisi automàtic del discurs argumentatiu, i per a desenvolupar tècniques de persuasió computacional basades en arguments. Amb aquestos objectius, en primer lloc es presenta una completa revisió de l'estat de l'art i es proposa una classificació dels treballs existents en l'àrea de l'argumentació computacional. Aquesta revisió permet contextualitzar i entendre la investigació previa de forma més clara des de la perspectiva humana del raonament argumentatiu, així com identificar les principals limitacions i futures tendències de la investigació realitzada en argumentació computacional. En segon lloc, amb l'objectiu de sol$\cdot$lucionar algunes d'aquestes limitacions, hem creat i descrit un nou conjunt de dades que ens permet abordar nous reptes i investigar problemes prèviament inabordables (e.g., avaluació automàtica de debats orals). Conjuntament amb aquestes dades, es proposa un nou sistema per a l'extracció d'arguments i es realitza l'anàlisi comparativa de distintes tècniques per a aquesta mateixa tasca. A més a més, es proposa un nou algoritme per a l'avaluació automàtica de debats argumentatius i es prova amb debats humans reals. Finalment, en tercer lloc es presenten una sèrie d'estudis i propostes per a millorar la capacitat persuasiva de sistemes d'argumentació computacionals en la interacció amb usuaris humans. D'aquesta forma, en aquesta tesi es presenten avanços en cada una de les parts principals del procés d'argumentació computacional (i.e., l'extracció automàtica d'arguments, la representació del coneixement i raonament basats en arguments, i la interacció humà-computador basada en arguments), així com es proposen alguns dels fonaments essencials per a l'anàlisi automàtica completa de discursos argumentatius en llenguatge natural.[EN] Computational argumentation is the area of research that studies and analyses the use of different techniques and algorithms that approximate human argumentative reasoning from a computational viewpoint. In this doctoral thesis we study the use of different techniques proposed under the framework of computational argumentation to perform an automatic analysis of argumentative discourse, and to develop argument-based computational persuasion techniques. With these objectives in mind, we first present a complete review of the state of the art and propose a classification of existing works in the area of computational argumentation. This review allows us to contextualise and understand the previous research more clearly from the human perspective of argumentative reasoning, and to identify the main limitations and future trends of the research done in computational argumentation. Secondly, to overcome some of these limitations, we create and describe a new corpus that allows us to address new challenges and investigate on previously unexplored problems (e.g., automatic evaluation of spoken debates). In conjunction with this data, a new system for argument mining is proposed and a comparative analysis of different techniques for this same task is carried out. In addition, we propose a new algorithm for the automatic evaluation of argumentative debates and we evaluate it with real human debates. Thirdly, a series of studies and proposals are presented to improve the persuasiveness of computational argumentation systems in the interaction with human users. In this way, this thesis presents advances in each of the main parts of the computational argumentation process (i.e., argument mining, argument-based knowledge representation and reasoning, and argument-based human-computer interaction), and proposes some of the essential foundations for the complete automatic analysis of natural language argumentative discourses.This thesis has been partially supported by the Generalitat Valenciana project PROME- TEO/2018/002 and by the Spanish Government projects TIN2017-89156-R and PID2020- 113416RB-I00.Ruiz Dolz, R. (2023). Computational Argumentation for the Automatic Analysis of Argumentative Discourse and Human Persuasion [Tesis doctoral]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/194806Compendi

An informant-based approach to argument strength in Defeasible Logic Programming

This work formalizes an informant-based structured argumentation approach in a multi-agent setting, where the knowledge base of an agent may include information provided by other agents, and each piece of knowledge comes attached with its informant. In that way, arguments are associated with the set of informants corresponding to the information they are built upon. Our approach proposes an informant-based notion of argument strength, where the strength of an argument is determined by the credibility of its informant agents. Moreover, we consider that the strength of an argument is not absolute, but it is relative to the resolution of the conflicts the argument is involved in. In other words, the strength of an argument may vary from one context to another, as it will be determined by comparison to its attacking arguments (respectively, the arguments it attacks). Finally, we equip agents with the means to express reasons for or against the consideration of any piece of information provided by a given informant agent. Consequently, we allow agents to argue about the arguments’ strength through the construction of arguments that challenge (respectively, defeat) or are in favour of their informant agents.Fil: Cohen, Andrea. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Gottifredi, Sebastián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Tamargo, Luciano Héctor. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: García, Alejandro Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentin

Argumentation-based recommendations: fantastic explanations and how to find them

A significant problem of recommender systems is their inability to explain recommendations, resulting in turn in ineffective feedback from users and the inability to adapt to users’ preferences. We propose a hybrid method for calculating predicted ratings, built upon an item/aspect-based graph with users’ partially given ratings, that can be naturally used to provide explanations for recommendations, extracted from user-tailored Tripolar Argumentation Frameworks (TFs). We show that our method can be understood as a gradual semantics for TFs, exhibiting a desirable, albeit weak, property of balance. We also show experimentally that our method is competitive in generating correct predictions, compared with state-of-the-art methods, and illustrate how users can interact with the generated explanations to improve quality of recommendations

Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Making

International audienceIn this article, we propose an agent-based model of opinion diffusion and voting where influence among individuals and deliberation in a group are mixed. The model is inspired from social modeling, as it describes an iterative process of collective decision-making that repeats a series of interindividual influences and collective deliberation steps, and studies the evolution of opinions and decisions in a group. It also aims at founding a comprehensive model to describe collective decision-making as a combination of two different paradigms: argumentation theory and ABM-influence models, which are not obvious to combine as a formal link between them is required. In our model, we find that deliberation, through the exchange of arguments, reduces the variance of opinions and the proportion of extremists in a population as long as not too much deliberation takes place in the decision processes. Additionally, if we define the correct collective decisions in the system in terms of the arguments that should be accepted, allowing for more deliberation favors convergence towards the correct decisions

Arguing about informant credibility in open multi-agent systems

This paper proposes the use of an argumentation framework with recursive attacks to address a trust model in a collaborative open multi-agent system. Our approach is focused on scenarios where agents share information about the credibility (informational trust) they have assigned to their peers. We will represent informants' credibility through credibility objects which will include not only trust information but also the informant source. This leads to a recursive setting where the reliability of certain credibility information depends on the credibility of other pieces of information that should be subject to the same analysis. Credibility objects are maintained in a credibility base which can have information in conflict. In this scenario, we will formally show that our proposal will produce a partially ordered credibility relation; such relation contains the information that can be justified by an argumentation process.Fil: Gottifredi, Sebastián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Tamargo, Luciano Héctor. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: García, Alejandro Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentin

Argument attribution explanations in quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks

Argumentative explainable AI has been advocated by several in recent years, with an increasing interest on explaining the reasoning outcomes of Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). While there is a considerable body of research on qualitatively explaining the reasoning outcomes of AFs with debates/disputes/dialogues in the spirit of extension-based semantics, explaining the quantitative reasoning outcomes of AFs under gradual semantics has not received much attention, despite widespread use in applications. In this paper, we contribute to filling this gap by proposing a novel theory of Argument Attribution Explanations (AAEs) by incorporating the spirit of feature attribution from machine learning in the context of Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs): whereas feature attribution is used to determine the influence of features towards outputs of machine learning models, AAEs are used to determine the influence of arguments towards topic arguments of interest. We study desirable properties of AAEs, including some new ones and some partially adapted from the literature to our setting. To demonstrate the applicability of our AAEs in practice, we conclude by carrying out two case studies in the scenarios of fake news detection and movie recommender systems

Persuasion-enhanced computational argumentative reasoning through argumentation-based persuasive frameworks

One of the greatest challenges of computational argumentation research consists of creating persuasive strategies that can effectively influence the behaviour of a human user. From the human perspective, argumentation represents one of the most effective ways to reason and to persuade other parties. Furthermore, it is very common that humans adapt their discourse depending on the audience in order to be more persuasive. Thus, it is of utmost importance to take into account user modelling features for personalising the interactions with human users. Through computational argumentation, we can not only devise the optimal solution, but also provide the rationale for it. However, synergies between computational argumentative reasoning and computational persuasion have not been researched in depth. In this paper, we propose a new formal framework aimed at improving the persuasiveness of arguments resulting from the computational argumentative reasoning process. For that purpose, our approach relies on an underlying abstract argumentation framework to implement this reasoning and extends it with persuasive features. Thus, we combine a set of user modelling and linguistic features through the use of a persuasive function in order to instantiate abstract arguments following a user-specific persuasive policy. From the results observed in our experiments, we can conclude that the framework proposed in this work improves the persuasiveness of argument-based computational systems. Furthermore, we have also been able to determine that human users place a high level of trust in decision support systems when they are persuaded using arguments and when the reasons behind the suggestion to modify their behaviour are provided