An approach for a negotiation model inspired on social networks

Supporting group decision-making in ubiquitous contexts is a complex task that needs to deal with a large amount of factors to be successful. Here we propose an approach for a negotiation model to support the group decisionmaking process specially designed for ubiquitous contexts. We propose a new look into this problematic, considering and defining strategies to deal with important points such as the type of attributes in the multi-criteria problem and agents' reasoning. Our model uses a social networking logic due to the type of communication employed by the agents as well as to the type of relationships they build as the interactions occur. Our approach intends to support the ubiquitous group decision-making process in a similar way to the real process, which simultaneously preserves the amount and quality of intelligence generated in face-to-face meetings and is adapted to be used in a ubiquitous context.This work is part-funded by ERDF - European Regional Development Fund through the COMPETE Programme (operational programme for competitiveness) and by National Funds through the FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) within project FCOMP-01-0124- FEDER-028980 (PTDC/EEISII/1386/2012) and SFRH/BD/89697/2012.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Participatory Design for Awareness Features: Enhancing Interaction in Communities of Practice

In the framework of the European Integrated Project PALETTE, the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) and the University of Patras are developing mediation services. These services aim at sustaining collaboration, supporting tacit and explicit knowledge management and enhancing individual and organizational learning in communities of practice (CoPs). Defined by Dourish and Belloti as "an understanding of the activities of others, which provides a context for one's own activity", awareness is one of the most crucial needs expressed by communities of practice in the framework of the participatory design process implemented within the Palette project. Awareness of past and current actions in shared environments and over shared artifacts motivates participation and guides the members' decisions and course of actions. This paper describes the approach adopted by two Web-based collaboration support applications, namely eLogbook and CoPe_it!, for developing awareness services. CoPs needs, in terms of awareness, were identified through the participatory design approach. Then, a combination of relevant awareness types found in the literature was adopted in order to address the identified awareness requirements. The resulting awareness services implemented by Palette's mediation services (eLogbook and CoPe_it!) are presented. In particular, the kind of awareness information provided and its rendering means are described. For each tool, the available awareness functionality is related to the awareness type it contributes

An Axiomatic Approach to Support in Argumentation

International audienceIn the context of bipolar argumentation (argumentation with two kinds of interaction, attacks and supports), we present an axiomatic approach for taking into account a special interpretation of the support relation, the necessary support. We propose constraints that should be imposed to a bipolar argumentation system using this interpretation. Some of these constraints concern the new attack relations, others concern acceptability. We extend basic Dung’s framework in different ways in order to propose frameworks suitable for encoding these constraints. By the way, we propose a formal study of properties of necessary support

Intelligent negotiation model for ubiquitous group decision scenarios

Supporting group decision-making in ubiquitous contexts is a complex task that must deal with a large amount of factors to succeed. Here we propose an approach for an intelligent negotiation model to support the group decision-making process specially designed for ubiquitous contexts. Our approach can be used by researchers that intend to include arguments, complex algorithms and agents' modelling in a negotiation model. It uses a social networking logic due to the type of communication employed by the agents and it intends to support the ubiquitous group decision-making process in a similar way to the real process, which simultaneously preserves the amount and quality of intelligence generated in face-to-face meetings. We propose a new look into this problematic by considering and defining strategies to deal with important points such as the type of attributes in the multicriteria problems, agents' reasoning and intelligent dialogues.This work has been supported by COMPETE Programme (operational programme for competitiveness) within project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007043, by National Funds through the FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) within the Projects UID/CEC/00319/2013, UID/EEA/00760/2013, and the João Carneiro PhD grant with the reference SFRH/BD/89697/2012 and by Project MANTIS - Cyber Physical System Based Proactive Collaborative Maintenance (ECSEL JU Grant nr. 662189).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Research opportunities for argumentation in social networks

Nowadays, many websites allow social networking between their users in an explicit or implicit way. In this work, we show how argumentation schemes theory can provide a valuable help to formalize and structure on-line discussions and user opinions in decision support and business oriented websites that held social networks between their users. Two real case studies are studied and analysed. Then, guidelines to enhance social decision support and recommendations with argumentation are provided.This work summarises results of the authors joint research, funded by an STMS of the Agreement Technologies COST Action 0801, by the Spanish government grants [CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, and TIN2012-36586-C03-01] and by the GVA project [PROMETEO 2008/051].Heras Barberá, SM.; Atkinson, KM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Grasso, F.; Julian Inglada, VJ.; Mcburney, PJ. (2013). Research opportunities for argumentation in social networks. Artificial Intelligence Review. 39(1):39-62. doi:10.1007/s10462-012-9389-0S3962391Amgoud L (2009) Argumentation for decision making. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, BerlinAnderson P (2007) What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Iechnology and Standards Watch reportBentahar J, Meyer CJJ, Moulin B (2007) Securing agent-oriented systems: an argumentation and reputation-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on information technology: new generations (ITNG 2007), IEEE Computer Society, pp 507–515Buckingham Shum S (2008) Cohere: towards Web 2.0 argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA, pp 28–30Burke R (2002) Hybrid recommender systems: survey and experiments. User Model User-Adapt Interact 12:331–370Cartwright D, Atkinson K (2008) Political engagement through tools for argumentation. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA 2008), pp 116–127Chesñevar C, McGinnis J, Modgil S, Rahwan I, Reed C, Simari G, South M, Vreeswijk G, Willmott S (2006) Towards an argument interchange format. Knowl Eng Rev 21(4):293–316Chesñevar CI, Maguitman AG, Gonzàlez MP (2009) Empowering recommendation technologies through argumentation. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 403–422García AJ, Dix J, Simari GR (2009) Argument-based logic programming. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, BerlinGolbeck J (2006) Generating predictive movie recommendations from trust in social networks. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on trust management, LNCS, vol 3986, 93–104Gordon T, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10–15):875–896Guha R, Kumar R, Raghavan P, Tomkins A (2004) Propagating trust and distrust. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on, World Wide Web, pp 403–412Heras S, Navarro M, Botti V, Julián V (2009) Applying dialogue games to manage recommendation in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent aystems, ArgMASHeras S, Atkinson K, Botti V, Grasso F, Julián V, McBurney P (2010a) How argumentation can enhance dialogues in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA, vol 216, pp 267–274Heras S, Atkinson K, Botti V, Grasso F, Julián V, McBurney P (2010b) Applying argumentation to enhance dialogues in social networks. In: ECAI 2010 workshop on computational models of natural argument, CMNA, pp 10–17Karacapilidis N, Tzagarakis M (2007) Web-based collaboration and decision making support: a multi-disciplinary approach. Web-Based Learn Teach Technol 2(4):12–23Kim D, Benbasat I (2003) Trust-related arguments in internet stores: a framework for evaluation. J Electron Commer Res 4(2):49–64Kim D, Benbasat I (2006) The effects of trust-assuring arguments on consumer trust in internet stores: application of Toulmin’s model of argumentation. Inf Syst Rese 17(3):286–300Laera L, Tamma V, Euzenat J, Bench-Capon T, Payne T (2006) Reaching agreement over ontology alignments. In: Proceedings of the 5th international semantic web conference (ISWC 2006)Lange C, Bojãrs U, Groza T, Breslin J, Handschuh S (2008) Expressing argumentative discussions in social media sites. In: Social data on the web (SDoW2008) workshop at the 7th international semantic web conferenceLinden G, Smith B, York J (2003) Amazon.com recommendations: item-to-item collaborative filtering. IEEE Internet Comput 7(1):76–80Linden G, Hong J, Stonebraker M, Guzdial M (2009) Recommendation algorithms, online privacy and more. Commun ACM, 52(5)Mika P (2007) Ontologies are us: a unified model of social networks and semantics. J Web Semant 5(1):5–15Montaner M, López B, de la Rosa JL (2002) Opinion-based filtering through trust. In: Cooperative information agents VI, LNCS, vol 2446, pp 127–144Ontañón S, Plaza E (2008) Argumentation-based information exchange in prediction markets. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, ArgMASPazzani MJ, Billsus D (2007) Content-based recommendation systems. In: The adaptive web, LNCS, vol 4321, pp 325–341Rahwan I, Zablith F, Reed C (2007) Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artif Intell 171(10–15):897–921Rahwan I, Banihashemi B (2008) Arguments in OWL: a progress report. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA), pp 297–310Reed C, Walton D (2007) Argumentation schemes in dialogue. In: Dissensus and the search for common ground, OSSA-07, volume CD-ROM, pp 1–11Sabater J, Sierra C (2002) Reputation and social network analysis in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, vol 1, pp 475–482Schafer JB, Konstan JA, Riedl J (2001) E-commerce recommendation applications. Data Min Knowl Discov 5:115–153Schafer JB, Frankowski D, Herlocker J, Sen S (2007) Collaborative filtering recommender systems. In: The adaptive web, LNCS, vol 4321, pp 291–324Schneider J, Groza T, Passant A (2012) A review of argumentation for the aocial semantic web. Semantic web-interoperability, usability, applicability. IOS Press, Washington, DCTempich C, Pinto HS, Sure Y, Staab S (2005) An argumentation ontology for distributed, loosely-controlled and evolvInG Engineering processes of oNTologies (DILIGENT). In: Proceedings of the 2nd European semantic web conference, ESWC, pp 241–256Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKTrojahn C, Quaresma P, Vieira R, Isaac A (2009) Comparing argumentation frameworks for composite ontology matching. in: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, ArgMASTruthMapping. http://truthmapping.com/Walter FE, Battiston S, Schweitzer F (2007) A model of a trust-based recommendation system on a social network. J Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 16(1):57–74Walton D, Krabbe E (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, New York, NYWalton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeWells S, Gourlay C, Reed C (2009) Argument blogging. Computational models of natural argument, CMNAWyner A, Schneider J (2012) Arguing from a point of view. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on agreement technologie

Requirements for big data analytics supporting decision making: A sensemaking perspective

Big data analytics requires technologies to efficiently process large quantities of data. Moreover, especially in decision making, it not only requires individual intellectual capabilities in the analytical activities but also collective knowledge. Very often, people with diverse expert knowledge need to work together towards a meaningful interpretation of the associated results for new insight. Thus, a big data analysis infrastructure must both support technical innovation and effectively accommodate input from multiple human experts. In this chapter, we aim to advance our understanding on the synergy between human and machine intelligence in tackling big data analysis. Sensemaking models for big data analysis were explored and used to inform the development of a generic conceptual architecture as a means to frame the requirements of such an analysis and to position the role of both technology and human in this synergetic relationship. Two contrasting real-world use case studies were undertaken to test the applicability of the proposed architecture for the development of a supporting platform for big data analysis. Reflection on this outcome has further advanced our understanding on the complexity and the potential of individual and collaborative sensemaking models for big data analytics

Development and implementation of clinical guidelines : an artificial intelligence perspective

Clinical practice guidelines in paper format are still the preferred form of delivery of medical knowledge and recommendations to healthcare professionals. Their current support and development process have well identified limitations to which the healthcare community has been continuously searching solutions. Artificial intelligence may create the conditions and provide the tools to address many, if not all, of these limitations.. This paper presents a comprehensive and up to date review of computer-interpretable guideline approaches, namely Arden Syntax, GLIF, PROforma, Asbru, GLARE and SAGE. It also provides an assessment of how well these approaches respond to the challenges posed by paper-based guidelines and addresses topics of Artificial intelligence that could provide a solution to the shortcomings of clinical guidelines. Among the topics addressed by this paper are expert systems, case-based reasoning, medical ontologies and reasoning under uncertainty, with a special focus on methodologies for assessing quality of information when managing incomplete information. Finally, an analysis is made of the fundamental requirements of a guideline model and the importance that standard terminologies and models for clinical data have in the semantic and syntactic interoperability between a guideline execution engine and the software tools used in clinical settings. It is also proposed a line of research that includes the development of an ontology for clinical practice guidelines and a decision model for a guideline-based expert system that manages non-compliance with clinical guidelines and uncertainty.This work is funded by national funds through the FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) within project PEst-OE/EEI/UI0752/2011"

Augmented Collaborative Spaces for Collective Sense Making: The Dicode Approach.

Sense making is at the heart of cognitively complex and data intensive decision making processes. It is often conducted in collective spaces through exchange of ideas, discussions, analysing situations, and exploring alternatives. This position paper proposes a novel approach to facilitate collective sense making via a collaboration platform which (a) offers multiple views to collaboration (including forums, mind maps, and argumentation structure), and (b) provides intelligent support to understand sense making behaviour by employing user and community modelling techniques. The work is conducted in the framework of the EU funded Dicode project, developing intelligent services for data-intensive collaboration and decision making