4,475 research outputs found
An Ontological-based Knowledge-Representation Formalism for Case-Based Argumentation
The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9524-3[EN] In open multi-agent systems, agents can enter or
leave the system, interact, form societies, and have dependency
relations with each other. In these systems, when
agents have to collaborate or coordinate their activities to
achieve their objectives, their different interests and preferences
can come into conflict. Argumentation is a powerful
technique to harmonise these conflicts. However, in many
situations the social context of agents determines the way in
which agents can argue to reach agreements. In this paper,
we advance research in the computational representation of
argumentation frameworks by proposing a new ontologicalbased,
knowledge-representation formalism for the design
of open MAS in which the participating software agents are
able to manage and exchange arguments with each other
taking into account the agents’ social context. This formalism
is the core of a case-based argumentation framework
for agent societies. In addition, we present an example of
the performance of the formalism in a real domain that
manages the requests received by the technicians of a call
centre.This work is supported by the Spanish government grants [CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, TIN2011-27652-C03-01, and TIN2012-36586-C03-01] and by the GVA project [PROMETEO II/2013/019].Heras Barberá, SM.; Botti, V.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2014). An Ontological-based Knowledge-Representation Formalism for Case-Based Argumentation. Information Systems Frontiers. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9524-3S120Amgoud, L. (2005). An argumentation-based model for reasoning about coalition structures. In 2nd international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, argmas-05(pp. 1–12). Springer.Amgoud, L., Dimopolous, Y., Moraitis, P. (2007). A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In 6th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS-07. IFAAMAS.Atkinson, K., & Bench-Capon, T. (2008). Abstract argumentation scheme frameworks. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence: methodology, systems and applications, AIMSA-08, lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 5253, pp. 220–234). Springer.Aulinas, M., Tolchinsky, P., Turon, C., Poch, M., Cortés, U. (2012). Argumentation-based framework for industrial wastewater discharges management. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 25(2), 317–325.Bench-Capon, T., & Atkinson, K. (2009). Argumentation in artificial intelligence, chap. abstract argumentation and values (pp. 45–64). Springer.Bench-Capon, T., & Sartor, G. (2003). A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2), 97–143.Bulling, N., Dix, J., Chesñevar, C.I. (2008). Modelling coalitions: ATL + argumentation. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS-08 (Vol. 2, pp. 681–688). ACM Press.Chesñevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293–316.Diaz-Agudo, B., & Gonzalez-Calero, P.A. (2007). Ontologies: A handbook of principles, concepts and applications in information systems, integrated series in information systems, chap. an ontological approach to develop knowledge intensive cbr systems (Vol. 14, pp. 173–214). Springer.Dung, P.M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and N -person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357.Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O., Michel, F. (2004). From agents to organizations: An organizational view of multi-agent systems. In Agent-oriented software engineering VI, LNCS (Vol. 2935, pp. 214–230.) Springer-Verlag.Hadidi, N., Dimopolous, Y., Moraitis, P. (2010). Argumentative alternating offers. In 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS-10 (pp. 441–448). IFAAMAS.Heras, S., Atkinson, K., Botti, V., Grasso, F., Julián, V., McBurney, P. (2010). How argumentation can enhance dialogues in social networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA-10, frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (Vol. 216, pp. 267–274). IOS Press.Heras, S., Botti, V., Julián, V. (2011). On a computational argumentation framework for agent societies. In Argumentation in multi-agent systems (pp. 123–140). Springer.Heras, S., Botti, V., Julián, V. (2012). Argument-based agreements in agent societies. Neurocomputing, 75(1), 156–162.Heras, S., Jordán, J., Botti, V., Julián, V. (2013). Argue to agree: A case-based argumentation approach. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 54(1), 82–108.Jordán, J., Heras, S., Julián, V. (2011). A customer support application using argumentation in multi-agent systems. In 14th international conference on information fusion (FUSION-11) (pp. 772– 778).Karunatillake, N.C. (2006). Argumentation-based negotiation in a social context. Ph.D. thesis, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, UK.Karunatillake, N.C., Jennings, N.R., Rahwan, I., McBurney, P. (2009). Dialogue games that agents play within a society. Artificial Intelligence, 173(9-10), 935–981.Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A. (1998). Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 104, 1–69.López de Mántaras, R., McSherry, D., Bridge, D., Leake, D., Smyth, B., Craw, S., Faltings, B., Maher, M.L., Cox, M., Forbus, K., Keane, M., Watson, I. (2006). Retrieval, reuse, revision, and retention in CBR. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(3), 215–240.Luck, M., & McBurney, P. (2008). Computing as interaction: Agent and agreement technologies. In IEEE international conference on distributed human-machine systems. IEEE Press.Oliva, E., McBurney, P., Omicini, A. (2008). Co-argumentation artifact for agent societies. In 5th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, Argmas-08 (pp. 31–46). Springer.Ontañón, S., & Plaza, E. (2007). Learning and joint deliberation through argumentation in multi-agent systems. In 7th international conference on agents and multi-agent systems, AAMAS-07. ACM Press.Ontañón, S., & Plaza, E. (2009). Argumentation-based information exchange in prediction markets. In Argumentation in multi-agent systems, LNAI (vol. 5384, pp. 181–196). Springer.Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3), 261–292.Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1, 93–124.Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D. (2005). Dialogues about the burden of proof. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL-05 (pp. 115–124). ACM Press.Sierra, C., Botti, V., Ossowski, S. (2011). Agreement computing. KI - Künstliche Intelligenz 10.1007/s13218-010-0070-y .Soh, L.K., & Tsatsoulis, C. (2005). A real-time negotiation model and a multi-agent sensor network implementation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(3), 215–271.Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.Wardeh, M., Bench-Capon, T., Coenen, F.P. (2008). PISA - pooling information from several agents: Multiplayer argumentation from experience. In Proceedings of the 28th SGAI international conference on artificial intelligence, AI-2008 (pp. 133–146). Springer.Wardeh, M., Bench-Capon, T., Coenen, F.P. (2009). PADUA: A protocol for argumentation dialogue using association rules. AI and Law, 17(3), 183–215.Wardeh, M., Coenen, F., Bench-Capon, T. (2010). Arguing in groups. In 3rd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA-10 (pp. 475–486). IOS Press.Willmott, S., Vreeswijk, G., Chesñevar, C., South, M., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format for multi-agent systems. In 3rd international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, ArgMAS-06 (pp. 17–34). Springer.Wyner, A., & Schneider, J. (2012). Arguing from a point of view. In Proceedings of the first international conference on agreement technologies
Integrating ontologies and argumentation for decision-making in breast cancer
This thesis describes some of the problems in providing care for patients with breast cancer. These are
then used to motivate the development of an extension to an existing theory of argumentation, which I
call the Ontology-based Argumentation Formalism (OAF). The work is assessed in both theoretical and
empirical ways.
From a clinical perspective, there is a problem with the provision of care. Numerous reports have
noted the failure to provide uniformly high quality care, as well as the number of deaths caused by
medical care. The medical profession has responded in various ways, but one of these has been the
development of Decision Support Systems (DSS). The evidence for the effectiveness of such systems is
mixed, and the technical basis of such systems remains open to debate. However, one basis that has been
used is argumentation.
An important aspect of clinical practice is the use of the evidence from clinical trials, but these trials
are based on the results in defined groups of patients. Thus when we use the results of clinical trials to
reason about treatments, there are two forms of information we are interested in - the evidence from
trials and the relationships between groups of patients and treatments. The relational information can be
captured in an ontology about the groups of patients and treatments, and the information from the trials
captured as a set of defeasible rules.
OAF is an extension of an existing argumentation system, and provides the basis for an
argumentation-based Knowledge Representation system which could serve as the basis for future DSS.
In OAF, the ontology provides a repository of facts, both asserted and inferred on the basis of formulae
in the ontology, as well as defining the language of the defeasible rules. The defeasible rules are used
in a process of defeasible reasoning, where monotonic consistent chains of reasoning are used to draw
plausible conclusions. This defeasible reasoning is used to generate arguments and counter-arguments.
Conflict between arguments is defined in terms of inconsistent formulae in the ontology, and by using
existing proposals for ontology languages we are able to make use of existing proposals and technologies
for ontological reasoning.
There are three substantial areas of novel work: I develop an extension to an existing argumentation
formalism, and prove some simple properties of the formalism. I also provide a novel formalism of the
practical syllogism and related hypothetical reasoning, and compare my approach to two other proposals
in the literature. I conclude with a substantial case study based on a breast cancer guideline, and in order
to do so I describe a methodology for comparing formal and informal arguments, and use the results of this to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of OAF. In order to develop the case study, I provide a
prototype implementation. The prototype uses a novel incremental algorithm to construct arguments and
I give soundness, completeness and time-complexity results. The final chapter of the thesis discusses
some general lessons from the development of OAF and gives ideas for future work
Epistemological vs. Ontological Relationalism in Quantum Mechanics: Relativism or Realism?
In this paper we investigate the history of relationalism and its present use
in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the first part of this article
we will provide a conceptual analysis of the relation between substantivalism,
relationalism and relativism in the history of both physics and philosophy. In
the second part, we will address some relational interpretations of quantum
mechanics, namely, Bohr's relational approach, the modal interpretation by
Kochen, the perspectival modal version by Bene and Dieks and the relational
interpretation by Rovelli. We will argue that all these interpretations ground
their understanding of relations in epistemological terms. By taking into
account the analysis on the first part of our work, we intend to highlight the
fact that there is a different possibility for understanding quantum mechanics
in relational terms which has not been yet considered within the foundational
literature. This possibility is to consider relations in (non-relativist)
ontological terms. We will argue that such an understanding might be capable of
providing a novel approach to the problem of representing what quantum
mechanics is really talking about.Comment: Welcome
On the Consequences of Retaining the General Validity of Locality in Physical Theory
The empirical validity of the locality (LOC) principle of relativity is used
to argue in favour of a local hidden variable theory (HVT) for individual
quantum processes. It is shown that such a HVT may reproduce the statistical
predictions of quantum mechanics (QM), provided the reproducibility of initial
hidden variable states is limited. This means that in a HVT limits should be
set to the validity of the notion of counterfactual definiteness (CFD). This is
supported by the empirical evidence that past, present, and future are
basically distinct. Our argumentation is contrasted with a recent one by Stapp
resulting in the opposite conclusion, i.e. nonlocality or the existence of
faster-than-light influences. We argue that Stapp's argumentation still depends
in an implicit, but crucial, way on both the notions of hidden variables and of
CFD. In addition, some implications of our results for the debate between Bohr
and Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen are discussed.Comment: revtex, 11 page
Managing Requirement Volatility in an Ontology-Driven Clinical LIMS Using Category Theory. International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications
Requirement volatility is an issue in software engineering in general, and in
Web-based clinical applications in particular, which often originates from an
incomplete knowledge of the domain of interest. With advances in the health
science, many features and functionalities need to be added to, or removed
from, existing software applications in the biomedical domain. At the same
time, the increasing complexity of biomedical systems makes them more difficult
to understand, and consequently it is more difficult to define their
requirements, which contributes considerably to their volatility. In this
paper, we present a novel agent-based approach for analyzing and managing
volatile and dynamic requirements in an ontology-driven laboratory information
management system (LIMS) designed for Web-based case reporting in medical
mycology. The proposed framework is empowered with ontologies and formalized
using category theory to provide a deep and common understanding of the
functional and nonfunctional requirement hierarchies and their interrelations,
and to trace the effects of a change on the conceptual framework.Comment: 36 Pages, 16 Figure
Introducing Preference-Based Argumentation to Inconsistent Ontological Knowledge Bases
International audienceHandling inconsistency is an inherent part of decision making in traditional agri-food chains – due to the various concerns involved. In order to explain the source of inconsistency and represent the existing conflicts in the ontological knowledge base, argumentation theory can be used. However, the current state of art methodology does not allow to take into account the level of significance of the knowledge expressed by the various ontological knowledge sources. We propose to use preferences in order to model those differences between formulas and evaluate our proposal practically by implementing it within the INRA platform and showing a use case using this formalism in a bread making decision support system
- …