On cumulativity in the context of defeasible argumentation

Las lógicas que permiten razonar de manera no-monótona suelen ser caracterizadas por la propiedad que carecen - casualmente, la monotonía - en vez de serlo por aquellas que sí gozan. Gabbay, Makinson y Kraus propusieron un conjunto de propiedades básicas de las relaciones de inferencia que toda teoría no-monótona debería satisfacer. No obstante, existen varios formalismos aparentemente razonables que no satisfacen algunos de estos principios, por caso la mayoría de los formalismos de argumentación rebatible. En este artículo determinamos el estado de estas propiedades básicas en el marco de dos populares sistemas argumentativosLogics for nonmonotonic reasoning have often been described by the property they lack—that is, monotonicity—instead of by those they do enjoy. Gabbay, Makinson and Kraus proposed a set of core properties for inference relations that every nonmonotonic theory ought to have. Yet, there are some apparently well-behaved formalisms that fail to comply with some of these principles, such as most defeasible argumentation formalisms. In this article we determine the status of these core properties in the context of two well-known argumentation frameworks.Workshop de Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI)Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

On cumulativity in the context of defeasible argumentation

Las lógicas que permiten razonar de manera no-monótona suelen ser caracterizadas por la propiedad que carecen - casualmente, la monotonía - en vez de serlo por aquellas que sí gozan. Gabbay, Makinson y Kraus propusieron un conjunto de propiedades básicas de las relaciones de inferencia que toda teoría no-monótona debería satisfacer. No obstante, existen varios formalismos aparentemente razonables que no satisfacen algunos de estos principios, por caso la mayoría de los formalismos de argumentación rebatible. En este artículo determinamos el estado de estas propiedades básicas en el marco de dos populares sistemas argumentativosLogics for nonmonotonic reasoning have often been described by the property they lack—that is, monotonicity—instead of by those they do enjoy. Gabbay, Makinson and Kraus proposed a set of core properties for inference relations that every nonmonotonic theory ought to have. Yet, there are some apparently well-behaved formalisms that fail to comply with some of these principles, such as most defeasible argumentation formalisms. In this article we determine the status of these core properties in the context of two well-known argumentation frameworks.Workshop de Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI)Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

ProCLAIM: an argument-based model for deliberating over safety critical actions

In this Thesis we present an argument-based model – ProCLAIM – intended to provide a setting for heterogeneous agents to deliberate on whether a proposed action is safe. That is, whether or not a proposed action is expected to cause some undesirable side effect that will justify not to undertake the proposed action. This is particularly relevant in safetycritical environments where the consequences ensuing from an inappropriate action may be catastrophic. For the practical realisation of the deliberations the model features a mediator agent with three main tasks: 1) guide the participating agents in what their valid argumentation moves are at each stage of the deliberation; 2) decide whether submitted arguments should be accepted on the basis of their relevance; and finally, 3) evaluate the accepted arguments in order to provide an assessment on whether the proposed action should or should not be undertaken, where the argument evaluation is based on domain consented knowledge (e.g guidelines and regulations), evidence and the decision makers’ expertise. To motivate ProCLAIM’s practical value and generality the model is applied in two scenarios: human organ transplantation and industrial wastewater. In the former scenario, ProCLAIM is used to facilitate the deliberation between two medical doctors on whether an available organ for transplantation is or is not suitable for a particular potential recipient (i.e. whether it is safe to transplant the organ). In the later scenario, a number of agents deliberate on whether an industrial discharge is environmentally safe.En esta tesis se presenta un modelo basado en la Argumentación –ProCLAIM– cuyo n es proporcionar un entorno para la deliberación sobre acciones críticas para la seguridad entre agentes heterogéneos. En particular, el propósito de la deliberación es decidir si los efectos secundario indeseables de una acción justi can no llevarla a cabo. Esto es particularmente relevante en entornos críticos para la seguridad, donde las consecuencias que se derivan de una acción inadecuada puede ser catastró cas. Para la realización práctica de las deliberaciones propuestas, el modelo cuenta con un agente mediador con tres tareas principales: 1) guiar a los agentes participantes indicando cuales son las líneas argumentación válidas en cada etapa de la deliberación; 2) decidir si los argumentos presentados deben ser aceptadas sobre la base de su relevancia y, por último, 3) evaluar los argumentos aceptados con el n de proporcionar una valoración sobre la seguridad de la acción propuesta. Esta valoración se basa en guías y regulaciones del dominio de aplicación, en evidencia y en la opinión de los expertos responsables de la decisión. Para motivar el valor práctico y la generalidad de ProCLAIM, este modelo se aplica en dos escenarios distintos: el trasplante de órganos y la gestión de aguas residuales. En el primer escenario el modelo se utiliza para facilitar la deliberación entre dos médicos sobre la viabilidad del transplante de un órgano para un receptor potencial (es decir, si el transplante es seguro). En el segundo escenario varios agentes deliberan sobre si los efectos de un vertido industrial con el propósito de minimizar su impacto medioambiental

Meta-level argumentation framework for representing and reasoning about disagreement

The contribution of this thesis is to the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), specifically to the sub-field called knowledge engineering. Knowledge engineering involves the computer representation and use of the knowledge and opinions of human experts.In real world controversies, disagreements can be treated as opportunities for exploring the beliefs and reasoning of experts via a process called argumentation. The central claim of this thesis is that a formal computer-based framework for argumentation is a useful solution to the problem of representing and reasoning with multiple conflicting viewpoints.The problem which this thesis addresses is how to represent arguments in domains in which there is controversy and disagreement between many relevant points of view. The reason that this is a problem is that most knowledge based systems are founded in logics, such as first order predicate logic, in which inconsistencies must be eliminated from a theory in order for meaningful inference to be possible from it.I argue that it is possible to devise an argumentation framework by describing one (FORA : Framework for Opposition and Reasoning about Arguments). FORA contains a language for representing the views of multiple experts who disagree or have differing opinions. FORA also contains a suite of software tools which can facilitate debate, exploration of multiple viewpoints, and construction and revision of knowledge bases which are challenged by opposing opinions or evidence.A fundamental part of this thesis is the claim that arguments are meta-level structures which describe the relationships between statements contained in knowledge bases. It is important to make a clear distinction between representations in knowledge bases (the object-level) and representations of the arguments implicit in knowledge bases (the meta-level). FORA has been developed to make this distinction clear and its main benefit is that the argument representations are independent of the object-level representation language. This is useful because it facilitates integration of arguments from multiple sources using different representation languages, and because it enables knowledge engineering decisions to be made about how to structure arguments and chains of reasoning, independently of object-level representation decisions.I argue that abstract argument representations are useful because they can facilitate a variety of knowledge engineering tasks. These include knowledge acquisition; automatic abstraction from existing formal knowledge bases; and construction, rerepresentation, evaluation and criticism of object-level knowledge bases. Examples of software tools contained within FORA are used to illustrate these uses of argumentation structures. The utility of a meta-level framework for argumentation, and FORA in particular, is demonstrated in terms of an important real world controversy concerning the health risks of a group of toxic compounds called aflatoxins

Sustainable Water Management and Wetland Restoration Strategies in Northern China

This book depicts the results of a research project in northern China, where an international and interdisciplinary team of researchers from Italy, Germany and China has applied a broad range of methodology in order to answer basic and applied research questions and derive comprehensive recommendations for sustainable water management and wetland restoration. The project primarily focused on ecosystem services, e.g. the purification of water and biomass production. In particular, the ecosystem function and use of reed (Phragmites australis) and the perception as well as the value of water as a resource for Central Asia's multicultural societies was analysed

Sustainable Water Management and Wetland Restoration Strategies in Northern China

This book depicts the results of a research project in northern China, where an international and interdisciplinary team of researchers from Italy, Germany and China has applied a broad range of methodology in order to answer basic and applied research questions and derive comprehensive recommendations for sustainable water management and wetland restoration. The project primarily focused on ecosystem services, e.g. the purification of water and biomass production. In particular, the ecosystem function and use of reed (Phragmites australis) and the perception as well as the value of water as a resource for Central Asia's multicultural societies was analysed