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

Decision Making Intelligent Agent on SOX Compliance over the Imports Process

The objective of this work is to define a decision support system over SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley Act) compatibility  of the Imports Process based on Artificial Intelligence and Theory of Argumentation knowledge and techniques measuring at the same time the quality of how things were done on this specific process of the analyzed business case. SOX Law in effect nowadays is worldwide facto standard for financial and economical operations of private sector with the main objective to protect investors of private sector and promote the financial health of private companies. In this framework we have developed a decision support intelligent expert model to help SOX control bodies, companies and auditors to support their SOX compliance decisions based on well founded bases like Artificial Intelligence and Theory of Argumentation. The model here presented incorporates several key concepts like pre-existing expert knowledge base, a formalized and structure way to evaluate an existing business case focusing on the Imports Process, a semi automated fuzzy dynamic knowledge learning protocol and an structure method to evolve based on the facts of the business case and suggest an specific decision about the SOX compatibility of the specific business case. Keywords: Multiagent Systems (MAS), Expert Systems (ES), Business Intelligence (BI), Decision Support Systems (DSS), Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence

Decision Making Intelligent Agent on SOX Compliance over the Goods Receipt Processs

The objective of this work is to define a decision support system over SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley Act) compatibility  of the Goods Receipt Process based on Artificial Intelligence and Theory of Argumentation knowledge and techniques measuring at the same time the quality of how things were done on this specific process of the analyzed business case. SOX Law in effect nowadays is worldwide facto standard for financial and economical operations of private sector with the main objective to protect investors of private sector and promote the financial health of private companies. In this framework we have developed a decision support intelligent expert model to help SOX control bodies, companies and auditors to support their SOX compliance decisions based on well founded bases like Artificial Intelligence and Theory of Argumentation. The model here presented incorporates several key concepts like pre-existing expert knowledge base, a formalized and structure way to evaluate an existing business case focusing on the Goods Receipt Process, a semi automated fuzzy dynamic knowledge learning protocol and an structure method to evolve based on the facts of the business case and suggest an specific decision about the SOX compatibility of the specific business case. Keywords: Multiagent Systems (MAS), Expert Systems (ES), Business Intelligence (BI), Decision Support Systems (DSS), Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence

Fuzzy argumentation for trust

In an open Multi-Agent System, the goals of agents acting on behalf of their owners often conflict with each other. Therefore, a personal agent protecting the interest of a single user cannot always rely on them. Consequently, such a personal agent needs to be able to reason about trusting (information or services provided by) other agents. Existing algorithms that perform such reasoning mainly focus on the immediate utility of a trusting decision, but do not provide an explanation of their actions to the user. This may hinder the acceptance of agent-based technologies in sensitive applications where users need to rely on their personal agents. Against this background, we propose a new approach to trust based on argumentation that aims to expose the rationale behind such trusting decisions. Our solution features a separation of opponent modeling and decision making. It uses possibilistic logic to model behavior of opponents, and we propose an extension of the argumentation framework by Amgoud and Prade to use the fuzzy rules within these models for well-supported decisions

KEMNAD: A Knowledge Engineering Methodology for Negotiating Agent Development

Automated negotiation is widely applied in various domains. However, the development of such systems is a complex knowledge and software engineering task. So, a methodology there will be helpful. Unfortunately, none of existing methodologies can offer sufficient, detailed support for such system development. To remove this limitation, this paper develops a new methodology made up of: (1) a generic framework (architectural pattern) for the main task, and (2) a library of modular and reusable design pattern (templates) of subtasks. Thus, it is much easier to build a negotiating agent by assembling these standardised components rather than reinventing the wheel each time. Moreover, since these patterns are identified from a wide variety of existing negotiating agents(especially high impact ones), they can also improve the quality of the final systems developed. In addition, our methodology reveals what types of domain knowledge need to be input into the negotiating agents. This in turn provides a basis for developing techniques to acquire the domain knowledge from human users. This is important because negotiation agents act faithfully on the behalf of their human users and thus the relevant domain knowledge must be acquired from the human users. Finally, our methodology is validated with one high impact system

Argumentation for machine learning: a survey

Existing approaches using argumentation to aid or improve machine learning differ in the type of machine learning technique they consider, in their use of argumentation and in their choice of argumentation framework and semantics. This paper presents a survey of this relatively young field highlighting, in particular, its achievements to date, the applications it has been used for as well as the benefits brought about by the use of argumentation, with an eye towards its future