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 a collaborative decision making environment, performance scores are either obtained when a consensus can be reached among stakeholders on a particular score or in some cases or controversial when stakeholders do not agree with each other about them. In the previous research an intelligent argumentation system for collaborative decision making was developed. In this thesis; its use is being extended for evaluating performance scores in MCDM. A framework is laid out for using the Intelligent Argumentation approach for resolving controversial performance scores. An application case study of Selection of a Mine Detection Simulation tool is used to illustrate the method. To validate it empirically, a case study to determine division of effort between software quality assurance and software testing, which has a group of 24 stakeholders, is conducted in a hypothetical setup. Its empirical data is collected and analyzed. The analysis serves two basic purposes: 1) to validate capability of the argumentation process in determining the controversial performance scores in MCDM using our intelligent computational argumentation system and to show its effectiveness in capturing rationales of stakeholders and assisting rapid collaborative decision making --Abstract, page iii

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

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

Argumentation Stance Polarity and Intensity Prediction and its Application for Argumentation Polarization Modeling and Diverse Social Connection Recommendation

Cyber argumentation platforms implement theoretical argumentation structures that promote higher quality argumentation and allow for informative analysis of the discussions. Dr. Liu’s research group has designed and implemented a unique platform called the Intelligent Cyber Argumentation System (ICAS). ICAS structures its discussions into a weighted cyber argumentation graph, which describes the relationships between the different users, their posts in a discussion, the discussion topic, and the various subtopics in a discussion. This platform is unique as it encodes online discussions into weighted cyber argumentation graphs based on the user’s stances toward one another’s arguments and ideas. The resulting weighted cyber argumentation graphs can then be used by various analytical models to measure aspects of the discussion. In prior work, many aspects of cyber argumentation have been modeled and analyzed using these stance relationships. However, many challenging problems remain in cyber argumentation. In this dissertation, I address three of these problems: 1) modeling and measure argumentation polarization in cyber argumentation discussions, 2) encouraging diverse social networks and preventing echo chambers by injecting ideological diversity into social connection recommendations, and 3) developing a predictive model to predict the stance polarity and intensity relationships between posts in online discussions, allowing discussions from outside of the ICAS platform to be encoded as weighted cyber argumentation graphs and be analyzed by the cyber argumentation models. In this dissertation, I present models to measure polarization in online argumentation discussions, prevent polarizing echo-chambers and diversifying users’ social networks ideologically, and allow online discussions from outside of the ICAS environment to be analyzed using the previous models from this dissertation and the prior work from various researchers on the ICAS system. This work serves to progress the field of cyber argumentation by introducing a new analytical model for measuring argumentation polarization and developing a novel method of encouraging ideological diversity into social connection recommendations. The argumentation polarization model is the first of its kind to look specifically at the polarization among the users contained within a single discussion in cyber argumentation. Likewise, the diversity enhanced social connection recommendation re-ranking method is also the first of its kind to introduce ideological diversity into social connections. The former model will allow stakeholders and moderators to monitor and respond to argumentation polarization detected in online discussions in cyber argumentation. The latter method will help prevent network-level social polarization by encouraging social connections among users who differ in terms of ideological beliefs. This work also serves as an initial step to expanding cyber argumentation research into the broader online deliberation field. The stance polarity and intensity prediction model presented in this dissertation is the first step in allowing discussions from various online platforms to be encoded into weighted cyber argumentation graphs by predicting the stance weights between users’ posts. These resulting predicted weighted cyber augmentation graphs could then be used to apply cyber argumentation models and methods to these online discussions from popular online discussion platforms, such as Twitter and Reddit, opening many new possibilities for cyber argumentation research in the future

Evidentialist Foundationalist Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems

This dissertation focuses on the explicit grounding of reasoning in evidence directly sensed from the physical world. Based on evidence from human problem solving and successes, this is a straightforward basis for reasoning: to solve problems in the physical world, the information required for solving them must also come from the physical world. What is less straightforward is how to structure the path from evidence to conclusions. Many approaches have been applied to evidence-based reasoning, including probabilistic graphical models and Dempster-Shafer theory. However, with some exceptions, these traditional approaches are often employed to establish confidence in a single binary conclusion, like whether or not there is a blizzard, rather than developing complex groups of scalar conclusions, like where a blizzard's center is, what area it covers, how strong it is, and what components it has. To form conclusions of the latter kind, we employ and further develop the approach of Computational Argumentation. Specifically, this dissertation develops a novel approach to evidence-based argumentation called Evidentialist Foundationalist Argumentation (EFA). The method is a formal instantiation of the well-established Argumentation Service Platform with Integrated Components (ASPIC) framework. There are two primary approaches to Computational Argumentation. One approach is structured argumentation where arguments are structured with premises, inference rules, conclusions, and arguments based on the conclusions of other arguments, creating a tree-like structure. The other approach is abstract argumentation where arguments interact at a higher level through an attack relation. ASPIC unifies the two approaches. EFA instantiates ASPIC specifically for the purpose of reasoning about physical evidence in the form of sensor data. By restricting ASPIC specifically to sensor data, special philosophical and computational advantages are gained. Specifically, all premises in the system (evidence) can be treated as firmly grounded axioms and all arguments' conclusions can be numerically calculated directly from their premises. EFA could be used as the basis for well-justified, transparent reasoning in many domains including engineering, law, business, medicine, politics, and education. To test its utility as a basis for Computational Argumentation, we apply EFA to a Multi-Agent System working in the problem domain of Sensor Webs on the specific problem of Decentralized Sensor Fusion. In the Multi-Agent Decentralized Sensor Fusion problem, groups of individual agents are assigned to sensor stations that are distributed across a geographical area, forming a Sensor Web. The goal of the system is to strategically share sensor readings between agents to increase the accuracy of each individual agent's model of the geophysical sensing situation. For example, if there is a severe storm, a goal may be for each agent to have an accurate model of the storm's heading, severity, and focal points of activity. Also, since the agents are controlling a Sensor Web, another goal is to use communication judiciously so as to use power efficiently. To meet these goals, we design a Multi-Agent System called Investigative Argumentation-based Negotiating Agents (IANA). Agents in IANA use EFA as the basis for establishing arguments to model geophysical situations. Upon gathering evidence in the form of sensor readings, the agents form evidence-based arguments using EFA. The agents systematically compare the conclusions of their arguments to other agents. If the agents sufficiently agree on the geophysical situation, they end communication. If they disagree, then they share the evidence for their conclusions, consuming communication resources with the goal of increasing accuracy. They execute this interaction using a Share on Disagreement (SoD) protocol. IANA is evaluated against two other Multi-Agent System approaches on the basis of accuracy and communication costs, using historical real-world weather data. The first approach is all-to-all communication, called the Complete Data Sharing (CDS) approach. In this system, agents share all observations, maximizing accuracy but at a high communication cost. The second approach is based on Kalman Filtering of conclusions and is called the Conclusion Negotiation Only (CNO) approach. In this system, agents do not share any observations, and instead try to infer the geophysical state based only on each other's conclusions. This approach saves communication costs but sacrifices accuracy. The results of these experiments have been statistically analyzed using omega-squared effect sizes produced by ANOVA with p-values < 0.05. The IANA system was found to outperform the CDS system for message cost with high effect sizes. The CDS system outperformed the IANA system for accuracy with only small effect sizes. The IANA system was found to outperform the CNO system for accuracy with mostly high and medium effect sizes. The CNO system outperformed the IANA system for message costs with only small effect sizes. Given these results, the IANA system is preferable for most of the testing scenarios for the problem solved in this dissertation

Decision support system for in-flight emergency events

Medical problems during flight have become an important issue as the number of passengers and miles flown continues to increase. The case of an incident in the plane falls within the scope of the healthcare management in the context of scarce resources associated with isolation of medical actors working in very complex conditions, both in terms of human and material resources. Telemedicine uses information and communication technologies to provide remote and flexible medical services, especially for geographically isolated people. Therefore, telemedicine can generate interesting solutions to the medical problems during flight. Our aim is to build a knowledge-based system able to help health professionals or staff members addressing an urgent situation by given them relevant information, some knowledge, and some judicious advice. In this context, knowledge representation and reasoning can be correctly realized using an ontology that is a representation of concepts, their attributes, and the relationships between them in a particular domain. Particularly, a medical ontology is a formal representation of a vocabulary related to a specific health domain. We propose a new approach to explain the arrangement of different ontological models (task ontology, inference ontology, and domain ontology), which are useful for monitoring remote medical activities and generating required information. These layers of ontologies facilitate the semantic modeling and structuring of health information. The incorporation of existing ontologies [for instance, Systematic Nomenclature Medical Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT)] guarantees improved health concept coverage with experienced knowledge. The proposal comprises conceptual means to generate substantial reasoning and relevant knowledge supporting telemedicine activities during the management of a medical incident and its characterization in the context of air travel. The considered modeling framework is sufficiently generic to cover complex medical situations for isolated and vulnerable populations needing some care and support services

Trends and challenges of e-government chatbots: Advances in exploring open government data and citizen participation content

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (PID2019-108965GB-I00) and the Regional Government of Andalusia (P20_00314 and B-SEJ-556-UGR20). The authors thank all people who participated in the reported studies.In this paper, we propose a conceptual framework composed of a number of e-government, implementation and evaluation-oriented variables, with which we jointly analyze chatbots presented in the research literature and chatbots deployed as public services in Spain at national, regional and local levels. As a result of our holistic analysis, we identify and discuss current trends and challenges in the development and evaluation of chatbots in the public administration sector, such as focusing the use of the conversational agents on the search for government information, documents and services –leaving citizen consultation and collaboration aside–, and conducting preliminary evaluations of prototypes in limited studies, lacking experiments on deployed systems, with metrics beyond effectiveness and usability –e.g., metrics related to the generation of public values. Addressing some of the identified challenges, we build and evaluate two novel chatbots that present advances in the access to open government data and citizen participation content. Moreover, we come up with additional, potential research lines that may be considered in the future for a new generation of e-government chatbots.Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (PID2019-108965GB-I00)Regional Government of Andalusia (P20_00314 and B-SEJ-556-UGR20

Enhancing Free-text Interactions in a Communication Skills Learning Environment

Learning environments frequently use gamification to enhance user interactions.Virtual characters with whom players engage in simulated conversations often employ prescripted dialogues; however, free user inputs enable deeper immersion and higher-order cognition. In our learning environment, experts developed a scripted scenario as a sequence of potential actions, and we explore possibilities for enhancing interactions by enabling users to type free inputs that are matched to the pre-scripted statements using Natural Language Processing techniques. In this paper, we introduce a clustering mechanism that provides recommendations for fine-tuning the pre-scripted answers in order to better match user inputs