Contribution-based priority assessment in a web-based intelligent argumentation network for collaborative software development

Decision making is an important aspect of the collaborative software development process which usually involves complex process of conflict resolution. Stakeholders approach decision making process from multiple perspectives and their priorities play a vital role in it. The priority assessment methods used in the argumentation process so far are usually static. Priorities remain constant throughout the decision making process. In order to make the collaborative system more closely replicate real-world scenarios, this work incorporates dynamic priority assessment into a web-based collaborative system which is based on intelligent computational argumentation. It evaluates priorities dynamically for each cycle of decision process based on contribution of individual participant. The contribution is assessed based on the impact of each participant\u27s arguments on a winning design alternative. More successful participants have higher priorities in argumentations during collaboration. An empirical case study is conducted to evaluate effectiveness of dynamic priority assessment in improving quality of the argumentation based decision making --Abstract, page iii

Management of an Intelligent Argumentation Network for a Web-Based Collaborative Engineering Design Environment

Conflict resolution is one of the most challenging tasks in collaborative engineering design. In our previous research, a web-based intelligent collaborative system was developed to address this challenge based on intelligent computational argumentation. However, two important issues were not resolved in that system: priority of participants and self-conflicting arguments. In this paper, we develop two methods for incorporating priorities of participants into the computational argumentation network: 1) weighted summation and 2) re-assessment of strengths of arguments based on priority of owners of the argument using fuzzy logic inference. In addition, we develop a method for detection of self-conflicting arguments. Incorporation of priority of participants and detection of self-conflicting arguments have strengthen the capability of managing intelligent argumentation network for the web-based collaborative engineering design system developed in our previous research

Management of an intelligent argumentation network for a web-based collaborative engineering design environment

Conflict resolution is one of the most challenging tasks in collaborative engineering design. In the previous research, a web-based intelligent collaborative system was developed to address this challenge based on intelligent computational argumentation. However, two important issues were not resolved in that system: priority of participants and self-conflicting arguments. In this thesis, two methods are developed for incorporating priorities of participants into the computational argumentation network: 1) weighted summation and 2) re-assessment of strengths of arguments based on priority of owners of the argument using fuzzy logic inference. In addition, a method for detection of self-conflicting arguments was developed --Abstract, page iii

Polarization and opinion analysis in an online argumentation system for collaborative decision support

Argumentation is an important process in a collaborative decision making environment. Argumentation from a large number of stakeholders often produces a large argumentation tree. It is challenging to comprehend such an argumentation tree without intelligent analysis tools. Also, limited decision support is provided for its analysis by the existing argumentation systems. In an argumentation process, stakeholders tend to polarize on their opinions, and form polarization groups. Each group is usually led by a group leader. Polarization groups often overlap and a stakeholder is a member of multiple polarization groups. Identifying polarization groups and quantifying a stakeholder\u27s degree of membership in multiple polarization groups helps the decision maker understand both the social dynamics and the post-decision effects on each group. Frameworks are developed in this dissertation to identify both polarization groups and quantify a stakeholder\u27s degree of membership in multiple polarization groups. These tasks are performed by quantifying opinions of stakeholders using argumentation reduction fuzzy inference system and further clustering opinions based on K-means and Fuzzy c-means algorithms. Assessing the collective opinion of the group on individual arguments is also important. This helps stakeholders understand individual arguments from the collective perspective of the group. A framework is developed to derive the collective assessment score of individual arguments in a tree using the argumentation reduction inference system. Further, these arguments are clustered using argument strength and collective assessment score to identify clusters of arguments with collective support and collective attack. Identifying outlier opinions in an argumentation tree helps in understanding opinions that are further away from the mean group opinion in the opinion space. Outlier opinions may exist from two perspectives in argumentation: individual viewpoint and collective viewpoint of the group. A framework is developed in this dissertation to address this challenge from both perspectives. Evaluation of the methods is also presented and it shows that the proposed methods are effective in identifying polarization groups and outlier opinions. The information produced by these methods help decision makers and stakeholders in making more informed decisions --Abstract, pages iii-iv

Incorporation of Evidences into an Intelligent Computational Argumentation Network for a Web-Based Collaborative Engineering Design System

Conflicts among the stakeholders are unavoidable in the process of collaborative engineering design. Resolution of these conflicts is a challenging task. In our previous research, a web based intelligent collaborative system was developed which provides decision-making support, using computational argumentation techniques. Enhancements were done to this system to incorporate the priorities of the stakeholders and to detect arguments that self conflict. As an effort to make this system more effective and more objective in the process of decision making, we develop a method to assess the effect of evidences in the argumentation network, using Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence and fuzzy logic. One or more evidences can support or attack an argument or another evidence. Incorporation of evidences in the argumentation network makes the decision making process more objective, as the weights assigned to the arguments can be re-assessed according to the evidences associated with them

Intelligent Computational Argumentation for Evaluating Performance Scores in Multi-criteria Decision Making

Multi-Criteria decision making (MCDM), is a discipline aimed at assisting multiple stakeholders in contemplating a decision paradigm in an uncertain environment. the decision analysis to be performed involves numerous alternative positions assessed under varied criterion. a performance score is assigned for each alternative in terms of every criterion, and it represents satisfaction of the criteria by that alternative. in real applications, performance scores are sometimes hard to determine, and they are often subjective. We have developed an intelligent computational argumentation approach for dealing with the problem of uncertainty in resolving the subjective scores. in this approach, an argumentation tree is developed to assess a performance score for an alternative under a criterion. the argumentation takes into consideration the strength of an argument i.e. the degree of support or attack for that argument, and priorities of stakeholders. a set of fuzzy argumentation rules in a fuzzy association matrix is used to assess the indirect impact of an argument on alternatives. Aggregation of strengths of supporting and attacking; direct and indirect arguments represent a performance score of an alternative for a criterion in the decision-making domain. a decision-making case study for developing a mine detection simulator is used to illustrate the method. © 2010 IEEE

Efficient Decision Support Systems

This series is directed to diverse managerial professionals who are leading the transformation of individual domains by using expert information and domain knowledge to drive decision support systems (DSSs). The series offers a broad range of subjects addressed in specific areas such as health care, business management, banking, agriculture, environmental improvement, natural resource and spatial management, aviation administration, and hybrid applications of information technology aimed to interdisciplinary issues. This book series is composed of three volumes: Volume 1 consists of general concepts and methodology of DSSs; Volume 2 consists of applications of DSSs in the biomedical domain; Volume 3 consists of hybrid applications of DSSs in multidisciplinary domains. The book is shaped upon decision support strategies in the new infrastructure that assists the readers in full use of the creative technology to manipulate input data and to transform information into useful decisions for decision makers

Prediction, Recommendation and Group Analytics Models in the domain of Mashup Services and Cyber-Argumentation Platform

Mashup application development is becoming a widespread software development practice due to its appeal for a shorter application development period. Application developers usually use web APIs from different sources to create a new streamlined service and provide various features to end-users. This kind of practice saves time, ensures reliability, accuracy, and security in the developed applications. Mashup application developers integrate these available APIs into their applications. Still, they have to go through thousands of available web APIs and chose only a few appropriate ones for their application. Recommending relevant web APIs might help application developers in this situation. However, very low API invocation from mashup applications creates a sparse mashup-web API dataset for the recommendation models to learn about the mashups and their web API invocation pattern. One research aims to analyze these mashup-specific critical issues, look for supplemental information in the mashup domain, and develop web API recommendation models for mashup applications. The developed recommendation model generates useful and accurate web APIs to reduce the impact of low API invocations in mashup application development. Cyber-Argumentation platform also faces a similarly challenging issue. In large-scale cyber argumentation platforms, participants express their opinions, engage with one another, and respond to feedback and criticism from others in discussing important issues online. Argumentation analysis tools capture the collective intelligence of the participants and reveal hidden insights from the underlying discussions. However, such analysis requires that the issues have been thoroughly discussed and participant’s opinions are clearly expressed and understood. Participants typically focus only on a few ideas and leave others unacknowledged and underdiscussed. This generates a limited dataset to work with, resulting in an incomplete analysis of issues in the discussion. One solution to this problem would be to develop an opinion prediction model for cyber-argumentation. This model would predict participant’s opinions on different ideas that they have not explicitly engaged. In cyber-argumentation, individuals interact with each other without any group coordination. However, the implicit group interaction can impact the participating user\u27s opinion, attitude, and discussion outcome. One of the objectives of this research work is to analyze different group analytics in the cyber-argumentation environment. The objective is to design an experiment to inspect whether the critical concepts of the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) are valid in our argumentation platform. This experiment can help us understand whether anonymity and group sense impact user\u27s behavior in our platform. Another section is about developing group interaction models to help us understand different aspects of group interactions in the cyber-argumentation platform. These research works can help develop web API recommendation models tailored for mashup-specific domains and opinion prediction models for the cyber-argumentation specific area. Primarily these models utilize domain-specific knowledge and integrate them with traditional prediction and recommendation approaches. Our work on group analytic can be seen as the initial steps to understand these group interactions

Towards a global participatory platform: Democratising open data, complexity science and collective intelligence

The FuturICT project seeks to use the power of big data, analytic models grounded in complexity science, and the collective intelligence they yield for societal benefit. Accordingly, this paper argues that these new tools should not remain the preserve of restricted government, scientific or corporate élites, but be opened up for societal engagement and critique. To democratise such assets as a public good, requires a sustainable ecosystem enabling different kinds of stakeholder in society, including but not limited to, citizens and advocacy groups, school and university students, policy analysts, scientists, software developers, journalists and politicians. Our working name for envisioning a sociotechnical infrastructure capable of engaging such a wide constituency is the Global Participatory Platform (GPP). We consider what it means to develop a GPP at the different levels of data, models and deliberation, motivating a framework for different stakeholders to find their ecological niches at different levels within the system, serving the functions of (i) sensing the environment in order to pool data, (ii) mining the resulting data for patterns in order to model the past/present/future, and (iii) sharing and contesting possible interpretations of what those models might mean, and in a policy context, possible decisions. A research objective is also to apply the concepts and tools of complexity science and social science to the project's own work. We therefore conceive the global participatory platform as a resilient, epistemic ecosystem, whose design will make it capable of self-organization and adaptation to a dynamic environment, and whose structure and contributions are themselves networks of stakeholders, challenges, issues, ideas and arguments whose structure and dynamics can be modelled and analysed. Graphical abstrac