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

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

Exploiting Domain Knowledge in Making Delegation Decisions

@inproceedings{conf/admi/EmeleNSP11, added-at = {2011-12-19T00:00:00.000+0100}, author = {Emele, Chukwuemeka David and Norman, Timothy J. and Sensoy, Murat and Parsons, Simon}, biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/20a08b683088443f1fd36d6ef28bf6615/dblp}, booktitle = {ADMI}, crossref = {conf/admi/2011}, editor = {Cao, Longbing and Bazzan, Ana L. C. and Symeonidis, Andreas L. and Gorodetsky, Vladimir and Weiss, Gerhard and Yu, Philip S.}, ee = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27609-5_9}, interhash = {1d7e7f8554e8bdb3d43c32e02aeabcec}, intrahash = {0a08b683088443f1fd36d6ef28bf6615}, isbn = {978-3-642-27608-8}, keywords = {dblp}, pages = {117-131}, publisher = {Springer}, series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science}, timestamp = {2011-12-19T00:00:00.000+0100}, title = {Exploiting Domain Knowledge in Making Delegation Decisions.}, url = {http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/admi/admi2011.html#EmeleNSP11}, volume = 7103, year = 2011 }Postprin

Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: NL

Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: N

Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse

The goal of argumentation mining, an evolving research field in computational linguistics, is to design methods capable of analyzing people's argumentation. In this article, we go beyond the state of the art in several ways. (i) We deal with actual Web data and take up the challenges given by the variety of registers, multiple domains, and unrestricted noisy user-generated Web discourse. (ii) We bridge the gap between normative argumentation theories and argumentation phenomena encountered in actual data by adapting an argumentation model tested in an extensive annotation study. (iii) We create a new gold standard corpus (90k tokens in 340 documents) and experiment with several machine learning methods to identify argument components. We offer the data, source codes, and annotation guidelines to the community under free licenses. Our findings show that argumentation mining in user-generated Web discourse is a feasible but challenging task.Comment: Cite as: Habernal, I. & Gurevych, I. (2017). Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse. Computational Linguistics 43(1), pp. 125-17

A Bayesian Argumentation Framework for Distributed Fault Diagnosis in Telecommunication Networks

Traditionally, fault diagnosis in telecommunication network management is carried out by humans who use software support systems. The phenomenal growth in telecommunication networks has nonetheless triggered the interest in more autonomous approaches, capable of coping with emergent challenges such as the need to diagnose faults' root causes under uncertainty in geographically-distributed environments, with restrictions on data privacy. In this paper, we present a framework for distributed fault diagnosis under uncertainty based on an argumentative framework for multi-agent systems. In our approach, agents collaborate to reach conclusions by arguing in unpredictable scenarios. The observations collected from the network are used to infer possible fault root causes using Bayesian networks as causal models for the diagnosis process. Hypotheses about those fault root causes are discussed by agents in an argumentative dialogue to achieve a reliable conclusion. During that dialogue, agents handle the uncertainty of the diagnosis process, taking care of keeping data privacy among them. The proposed approach is compared against existing alternatives using benchmark multi-domain datasets. Moreover, we include data collected from a previous fault diagnosis system running in a telecommunication network for one and a half years. Results show that the proposed approach is suitable for the motivational scenario