Possibilistic Nested Logic Programs

We introduce the class of possibilistic nested logic programs. These possibilistic logic programs allow us to use nested expressions in the bodies and the heads of their rules. By considering a possibilistic nested logic program as a possibilistic theory, a construction of a possibilistic logic programing semantics based on answer sets for nested logic programs and the proof theory of possibilistic logic is defined. We show that this new semantics for possibilistic logic programs is computable by means of transforming possibilistic nested logic programs into possibilistic disjunctive logic programs. The expressiveness of the possibilistic nested logic programs is illustrated by scenarios from the medical domain. In particular, we exemplify how possibilistic nested logic programs are expressive enough for capturing medical guidelines which are pervaded of vagueness and qualitative information

Evaluating the Impact of Defeasible Argumentation as a Modelling Technique for Reasoning under Uncertainty

Limited work exists for the comparison across distinct knowledge-based approaches in Artificial Intelligence (AI) for non-monotonic reasoning, and in particular for the examination of their inferential and explanatory capacity. Non-monotonicity, or defeasibility, allows the retraction of a conclusion in the light of new information. It is a similar pattern to human reasoning, which draws conclusions in the absence of information, but allows them to be corrected once new pieces of evidence arise. Thus, this thesis focuses on a comparison of three approaches in AI for implementation of non-monotonic reasoning models of inference, namely: expert systems, fuzzy reasoning and defeasible argumentation. Three applications from the fields of decision-making in healthcare and knowledge representation and reasoning were selected from real-world contexts for evaluation: human mental workload modelling, computational trust modelling, and mortality occurrence modelling with biomarkers. The link between these applications comes from their presumptively non-monotonic nature. They present incomplete, ambiguous and retractable pieces of evidence. Hence, reasoning applied to them is likely suitable for being modelled by non-monotonic reasoning systems. An experiment was performed by exploiting six deductive knowledge bases produced with the aid of domain experts. These were coded into models built upon the selected reasoning approaches and were subsequently elicited with real-world data. The numerical inferences produced by these models were analysed according to common metrics of evaluation for each field of application. For the examination of explanatory capacity, properties such as understandability, extensibility, and post-hoc interpretability were meticulously described and qualitatively compared. Findings suggest that the variance of the inferences produced by expert systems and fuzzy reasoning models was higher, highlighting poor stability. In contrast, the variance of argument-based models was lower, showing a superior stability of its inferences across different system configurations. In addition, when compared in a context with large amounts of conflicting information, defeasible argumentation exhibited a stronger potential for conflict resolution, while presenting robust inferences. An in-depth discussion of the explanatory capacity showed how defeasible argumentation can lead to the construction of non-monotonic models with appealing properties of explainability, compared to those built with expert systems and fuzzy reasoning. The originality of this research lies in the quantification of the impact of defeasible argumentation. It illustrates the construction of an extensive number of non-monotonic reasoning models through a modular design. In addition, it exemplifies how these models can be exploited for performing non-monotonic reasoning and producing quantitative inferences in real-world applications. It contributes to the field of non-monotonic reasoning by situating defeasible argumentation among similar approaches through a novel empirical comparison

General report & recommendations in predictive, preventive and personalised medicine 2012: white paper of the European Association for Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine

This report is the collective product of word-leading experts working in the branches of integrative medicine by predictive, preventive and personalised medicine (PPPM) under the coordination of the European Association for Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine. The general report has been prepared as the consortium document proposed at the EPMA World Congress 2011 which took place in Bonn, Germany. This forum analyzed the overall deficits and trends relevant for the top-science and daily practice in PPPM focused on the patient. Follow-up consultations resulted in a package of recommendations for consideration by research units, educators, healthcare industry, policy-makers, and funding bodies to cover the current knowledge deficit in the field and to introduce integrative approaches for advanced diagnostics, targeted prevention, treatments tailored to the person and cost-effective healthcare

Ontology driven clinical decision support for early diagnostic recommendations

Diagnostic error is a significant problem in medicine and a major cause of concern for patients and clinicians and is associated with moderate to severe harm to patients. Diagnostic errors are a primary cause of clinical negligence and can result in malpractice claims. Cognitive errors caused by biases such as premature closure and confirmation bias have been identified as major cause of diagnostic error. Researchers have identified several strategies to reduce diagnostic error arising from cognitive factors. This includes considering alternatives, reducing reliance on memory, providing access to clear and well-organized information. Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) have been shown to reduce diagnostic errors. Clinical guidelines improve consistency of care and can potentially improve healthcare efficiency. They can alert clinicians to diagnostic tests and procedures that have the greatest evidence and provide the greatest benefit. Clinical guidelines can be used to streamline clinical decision making and provide the knowledge base for guideline based CDSSs and clinical alert systems. Clinical guidelines can potentially improve diagnostic decision making by improving information gathering. Argumentation is an emerging area for dealing with unstructured evidence in domains such as healthcare that are characterized by uncertainty. The knowledge needed to support decision making is expressed in the form of arguments. Argumentation has certain advantages over other decision support reasoning methods. This includes the ability to function with incomplete information, the ability to capture domain knowledge in an easy manner, using non-monotonic logic to support defeasible reasoning and providing recommendations in a manner that can be easily explained to clinicians. Argumentation is therefore a suitable method for generating early diagnostic recommendations. Argumentation-based CDSSs have been developed in a wide variety of clinical domains. However, the impact of an argumentation-based diagnostic Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) has not been evaluated yet. The first part of this thesis evaluates the impact of guideline recommendations and an argumentation-based diagnostic CDSS on clinician information gathering and diagnostic decision making. In addition, the impact of guideline recommendations on management decision making was evaluated. The study found that argumentation is a viable method for generating diagnostic recommendations that can potentially help reduce diagnostic error. The study showed that guideline recommendations do have a positive impact on information gathering of optometrists and can potentially help optometrists in asking the right questions and performing tests as per current standards of care. Guideline recommendations were found to have a positive impact on management decision making. The CDSS is dependent on quality of data that is entered into the system. Faulty interpretation of data can lead the clinician to enter wrong data and cause the CDSS to provide wrong recommendations. Current generation argumentation-based CDSSs and other diagnostic decision support systems have problems with semantic interoperability that prevents them from using data from the web. The clinician and CDSS is limited to information collected during a clinical encounter and cannot access information on the web that could be relevant to a patient. This is due to the distributed nature of medical information and lack of semantic interoperability between healthcare systems. Current argumentation-based decision support applications require specialized tools for modelling and execution and this prevents widespread use and adoption of these tools especially when these tools require additional training and licensing arrangements. Semantic web and linked data technologies have been developed to overcome problems with semantic interoperability on the web. Ontology-based diagnostic CDSS applications have been developed using semantic web technology to overcome problems with semantic interoperability of healthcare data in decision support applications. However, these models have problems with expressiveness, requiring specialized software and algorithms for generating diagnostic recommendations. The second part of this thesis describes the development of an argumentation-based ontology driven diagnostic model and CDSS that can execute this model to generate ranked diagnostic recommendations. This novel model called the Disease-Symptom Model combines strengths of argumentation with strengths of semantic web technology. The model allows the domain expert to model arguments favouring and negating a diagnosis using OWL/RDF language. The model uses a simple weighting scheme that represents the degree of support of each argument within the model. The model uses SPARQL to sum weights and produce a ranked diagnostic recommendation. The model can provide justifications for each recommendation in a manner that clinicians can easily understand. CDSS prototypes that can execute this ontology model to generate diagnostic recommendations were developed. The decision support prototypes demonstrated the ability to use a wide variety of data and access remote data sources using linked data technologies to generate recommendations. The thesis was able to demonstrate the development of an argumentation-based ontology driven diagnostic decision support model and decision support system that can integrate information from a variety of sources to generate diagnostic recommendations. This decision support application was developed without the use of specialized software and tools for modelling and execution, while using a simple modelling method. The third part of this thesis details evaluation of the Disease-Symptom model across all stages of a clinical encounter by comparing the performance of the model with clinicians. The evaluation showed that the Disease-Symptom Model can provide a ranked diagnostic recommendation in early stages of the clinical encounter that is comparable to clinicians. The diagnostic performance can be improved in the early stages using linked data technologies to incorporate more information into the decision making. With limited information, depending on the type of case, the performance of the Disease-Symptom Model will vary. As more information is collected during the clinical encounter the decision support application can provide recommendations that is comparable to clinicians recruited for the study. The evaluation showed that even with a simple weighting and summation method used in the Disease- Symptom Model the diagnostic ranking was comparable to dentists. With limited information in the early stages of the clinical encounter the Disease-Symptom Model was able to provide an accurately ranked diagnostic recommendation validating the model and methods used in this thesis

Argumentation in biology : exploration and analysis through a gene expression use case

Argumentation theory conceptualises the human practice of debating. Implemented as computational argumentation it enables a computer to perform a virtual debate. Using existing knowledge from research into argumentation theory, this thesis investigates the potential of computational argumentation within biology. As a form of non-monotonic reasoning, argumentation can be used to tackle inconsistent and incomplete information - two common problems for the users of biological data. Exploration of argumentation shall be conducted by examining these issues within one biological subdomain: in situ gene expression information for the developmental mouse. Due to the complex and often contradictory nature of biology, occasionally it is not apparent whether or not a particular gene is involved in the development of a particular tissue. Expert biological knowledge is recorded, and used to generate arguments relating to this matter. These arguments are presented to the user in order to help him/her decide whether or not the gene is expressed. In order to do this, the notion of argumentation schemes has been borrowed from philosophy, and combined with ideas and technologies from arti cial intelligence. The resulting conceptualisation is implemented and evaluated in order to understand the issues related to applying computational argumentation within biology. Ultimately, this work concludes with a discussion of Argudas - a real world tool developed for the biological community, and based on the knowledge gained during this work

Computational Argumentation for the Automatic Analysis of Argumentative Discourse and Human Persuasion

Tesis por compendio[ES] La argumentación computacional es el área de investigación que estudia y analiza el uso de distintas técnicas y algoritmos que aproximan el razonamiento argumentativo humano desde un punto de vista computacional. En esta tesis doctoral se estudia el uso de distintas técnicas propuestas bajo el marco de la argumentación computacional para realizar un análisis automático del discurso argumentativo, y para desarrollar técnicas de persuasión computacional basadas en argumentos. Con estos objetivos, en primer lugar se presenta una completa revisión del estado del arte y se propone una clasificación de los trabajos existentes en el área de la argumentación computacional. Esta revisión nos permite contextualizar y entender la investigación previa de forma más clara desde la perspectiva humana del razonamiento argumentativo, así como identificar las principales limitaciones y futuras tendencias de la investigación realizada en argumentación computacional. En segundo lugar, con el objetivo de solucionar algunas de estas limitaciones, se ha creado y descrito un nuevo conjunto de datos que permite abordar nuevos retos y investigar problemas previamente inabordables (e.g., evaluación automática de debates orales). Conjuntamente con estos datos, se propone un nuevo sistema para la extracción automática de argumentos y se realiza el análisis comparativo de distintas técnicas para esta misma tarea. Además, se propone un nuevo algoritmo para la evaluación automática de debates argumentativos y se prueba con debates humanos reales. Finalmente, en tercer lugar se presentan una serie de estudios y propuestas para mejorar la capacidad persuasiva de sistemas de argumentación computacionales en la interacción con usuarios humanos. De esta forma, en esta tesis se presentan avances en cada una de las partes principales del proceso de argumentación computacional (i.e., extracción automática de argumentos, representación del conocimiento y razonamiento basados en argumentos, e interacción humano-computador basada en argumentos), así como se proponen algunos de los cimientos esenciales para el análisis automático completo de discursos argumentativos en lenguaje natural.[CA] L'argumentació computacional és l'àrea de recerca que estudia i analitza l'ús de distintes tècniques i algoritmes que aproximen el raonament argumentatiu humà des d'un punt de vista computacional. En aquesta tesi doctoral s'estudia l'ús de distintes tècniques proposades sota el marc de l'argumentació computacional per a realitzar una anàlisi automàtic del discurs argumentatiu, i per a desenvolupar tècniques de persuasió computacional basades en arguments. Amb aquestos objectius, en primer lloc es presenta una completa revisió de l'estat de l'art i es proposa una classificació dels treballs existents en l'àrea de l'argumentació computacional. Aquesta revisió permet contextualitzar i entendre la investigació previa de forma més clara des de la perspectiva humana del raonament argumentatiu, així com identificar les principals limitacions i futures tendències de la investigació realitzada en argumentació computacional. En segon lloc, amb l'objectiu de sol$\cdot$lucionar algunes d'aquestes limitacions, hem creat i descrit un nou conjunt de dades que ens permet abordar nous reptes i investigar problemes prèviament inabordables (e.g., avaluació automàtica de debats orals). Conjuntament amb aquestes dades, es proposa un nou sistema per a l'extracció d'arguments i es realitza l'anàlisi comparativa de distintes tècniques per a aquesta mateixa tasca. A més a més, es proposa un nou algoritme per a l'avaluació automàtica de debats argumentatius i es prova amb debats humans reals. Finalment, en tercer lloc es presenten una sèrie d'estudis i propostes per a millorar la capacitat persuasiva de sistemes d'argumentació computacionals en la interacció amb usuaris humans. D'aquesta forma, en aquesta tesi es presenten avanços en cada una de les parts principals del procés d'argumentació computacional (i.e., l'extracció automàtica d'arguments, la representació del coneixement i raonament basats en arguments, i la interacció humà-computador basada en arguments), així com es proposen alguns dels fonaments essencials per a l'anàlisi automàtica completa de discursos argumentatius en llenguatge natural.[EN] Computational argumentation is the area of research that studies and analyses the use of different techniques and algorithms that approximate human argumentative reasoning from a computational viewpoint. In this doctoral thesis we study the use of different techniques proposed under the framework of computational argumentation to perform an automatic analysis of argumentative discourse, and to develop argument-based computational persuasion techniques. With these objectives in mind, we first present a complete review of the state of the art and propose a classification of existing works in the area of computational argumentation. This review allows us to contextualise and understand the previous research more clearly from the human perspective of argumentative reasoning, and to identify the main limitations and future trends of the research done in computational argumentation. Secondly, to overcome some of these limitations, we create and describe a new corpus that allows us to address new challenges and investigate on previously unexplored problems (e.g., automatic evaluation of spoken debates). In conjunction with this data, a new system for argument mining is proposed and a comparative analysis of different techniques for this same task is carried out. In addition, we propose a new algorithm for the automatic evaluation of argumentative debates and we evaluate it with real human debates. Thirdly, a series of studies and proposals are presented to improve the persuasiveness of computational argumentation systems in the interaction with human users. In this way, this thesis presents advances in each of the main parts of the computational argumentation process (i.e., argument mining, argument-based knowledge representation and reasoning, and argument-based human-computer interaction), and proposes some of the essential foundations for the complete automatic analysis of natural language argumentative discourses.This thesis has been partially supported by the Generalitat Valenciana project PROME- TEO/2018/002 and by the Spanish Government projects TIN2017-89156-R and PID2020- 113416RB-I00.Ruiz Dolz, R. (2023). Computational Argumentation for the Automatic Analysis of Argumentative Discourse and Human Persuasion [Tesis doctoral]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/194806Compendi

Person centered care: advanced philosophical perspectives

The ideas and terminology of person-centred care have been part of health discourse for a very long time. Arguments that in healthcare one treats the whole person, not her/his component parts, date back at least to antiquity and the need to treat the patient as a person is articulated persuasively by clinical authors in the early twentieth century. Yet it is only in recent years that we have seen a growing consensus in health policy and practice literature that PCC, and associated ideas including patient expertise, co-production and shared decision-making, are not simply “fine ideals” or “ethical add-ons” to sound scientific clinical practice, but rather they represent indispensable components of any genuinely integrated, realistic and conceptually sound account of healthcare practice. The underlying conviction of this volume - one belief that, despite their differences, unites all of its contributors - is that PCC should not become the latest “revolutionary” concept to be “operationalised” before being “conceptualised”. It is imperative that we develop an open and inclusive dialogue about what we do and do not mean by “person-centred” to inform our attempts to implement PCC

Spectators’ aesthetic experiences of sound and movement in dance performance

In this paper we present a study of spectators’ aesthetic experiences of sound and movement in live dance performance. A multidisciplinary team comprising a choreographer, neuroscientists and qualitative researchers investigated the effects of different sound scores on dance spectators. What would be the impact of auditory stimulation on kinesthetic experience and/or aesthetic appreciation of the dance? What would be the effect of removing music altogether, so that spectators watched dance while hearing only the performers’ breathing and footfalls? We investigated audience experience through qualitative research, using post-performance focus groups, while a separately conducted functional brain imaging (fMRI) study measured the synchrony in brain activity across spectators when they watched dance with sound or breathing only. When audiences watched dance accompanied by music the fMRI data revealed evidence of greater intersubject synchronisation in a brain region consistent with complex auditory processing. The audience research found that some spectators derived pleasure from finding convergences between two complex stimuli (dance and music). The removal of music and the resulting audibility of the performers’ breathing had a significant impact on spectators’ aesthetic experience. The fMRI analysis showed increased synchronisation among observers, suggesting greater influence of the body when interpreting the dance stimuli. The audience research found evidence of similar corporeally focused experience. The paper discusses possible connections between the findings of our different approaches, and considers the implications of this study for interdisciplinary research collaborations between arts and sciences

Derationalizing Delusions

Because of the traditional conceptualization of delusion as “irrational belief,” cognitive models of delusions largely focus on impairments to domain-general reasoning. Nevertheless, current rationality-impairment models do not account for the fact that (a) equivalently irrational beliefs can be induced through adaptive social cognitive processes, reflecting social integration rather than impairment; (b) delusions are overwhelmingly socially themed; and (c) delusions show a reduced sensitivity to social context both in terms of how they are shaped and how they are communicated. Consequently, we argue that models of delusions need to include alteration to coalitional cognition—processes involved in affiliation, group perception, and the strategic management of relationships. This approach has the advantage of better accounting for both content (social themes) and form (fixity) of delusion. It is also supported by the established role of mesolimbic dopamine in both delusions and social organization and the ongoing reconceptualization of belief as serving a social organizational function