Analyses of argumentation schemes developed in the group here have been adapted for use in Compendium, a popular discussion mapping tool. This is a nice example of the sort of re-use that XML (and Araucaria‘s AML) allows, and that the AIF is designed to simplify. There are more details at the Compendium site.
Chris has been invited to sit on the Programme Committee of the 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web which aims to combine existing semantic web technology with collaborative working, social networking, debate and (of course) argumentation. Deadline for submissions is 07 May 2007.
Chris is giving a non-technical talk on the work of ARG:dundee to the local chapter of the BCS this evening in Wolfson at 1900.
Arguing for Computers
or, the Computational Advantages of being Disagreeable.
Web Services, Service Oriented Architectures and methods on objects: the
paradigm for enterprise software in the first decade of the 21st century
is one of cooperation and guaranteed levels of service. Recent research
in computer science is starting to demonstrate that a paradigm shift may
be waiting in the wings. If we build software components that decide
whether or not to supply a service (rather than guaranteeing it), our
complex systems become more reliable. If we design software components
that work competitively, rather than cooperatively, they can find better
solutions to hard problems. And if we plan systems that disagree,
dispute and argue, we can increase efficiency in communication and
processing.
This talk explores what selfishness, autonomy and argument mean for
current computational research and future computational practice,
placing a heavy emphasis on systems, tools and techniques that are
available now.
Dr Chris Reed is Senior Lecturer and Head of Research at the University
of Dundee’s School of Computing, where he leads a group exploring the
roles of argument in computing and artificial intelligence. He has
worked in the area since the mid 1990’s and has published over 80 papers
on the topic. He is also an executive director of Calico Jack Ltd., a
Dundee-based SME that builds network solutions for mobile operators
based on non-traditional software engineering techniques aimed at
handling complex, distributed application domains.
Many congratulations to Simon Wells who this morning successfully defended his Ph.D. thesis. He was examined by Prof. Trevor Bench Capon (Liverpool) and Dr. Keith Edwards (Dundee). Simon is staying on in the group as a postdoctoral fellow.
Carlos Chesñevar from the Universities of Lleida (Spain) and Nacional del Sur (Argentina) is visiting us today and tomorrow. He is presenting a seminar Wednesday (Feb 14th) afternoon at 3pm in Wolfson:
Recommender System Technologies based on Argumentation
Recommender systems have evolved in the last years as specialized
tools to assist users in a plethora of computer-mediated tasks by
providing guidelines or hints. Most recommender systems are aimed
at facilitating access to relevant items, a situation particularly
common when performing web-based tasks.
At the same time, argumentation has been gaining increasing
importance in several AI-related areas, mainly as a vehicle for
facilitating rationally justifiable decision making when handling
incomplete and potentially inconsistent information. In this
setting, argument-based approaches can be used to automatize
reasoning and decision making in several situations such as
the handling of complex policies or managing change in dynamic
environments.
In this talk we will present a first approach towards combining
recommender system technologies with argument-based inference.
The ultimate goal is to enhance practical reasoning capabilities
of current recommender system technology by incorporating
argument-based qualitative inference.
Proof of concept prototypes of the proposed approach have been
developed using using Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP),
an argument-based logic programming framework.
Some particular case studies will be discussed. One of them will
involve applying argumentation in the classification of web search
results according to preference criteria declaratively specified
by the user. We will also present an overview of an argument-based
critiquing system for language usage assessment, where
suggestions are built on the basis of the Web linguistic corpus.
The presentation will conclude by discussing some of the
relevant research lines that are currently being pursued
for developing argument-based decision making.
Main references:
– “Recommender System Technologies based on Argumentation”
(C. Chesñevar, A. Maguitman, G. Simari).
In “Emerging Artificial Intelligence Applications in Computer Engineering”.
(Series Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications).
Ilias Maglogiannis, Kostas Karpouzis and John Soldatos (eds). IOS Press,
2007 (in preparation).
– “Argument-Based Critics and Recommenders: A Qualitative Perspective on User
Support Systems”
(C. Chesñevar, A. Maguitman, G. Simari).
Data & Knowledge Engineering (DKE), Elsevier, Vol.59, Issue 2, pp. 293-319,
2006.
– “An Argument-based Decision Support System for Assessing Natural Language
Usage on the Basis of the Web Corpus”
(C. Chesñevar, M. Sabaté, A. Maguitman).
Intl. Journal of Intelligent Systems (IJIS), Wiley, Vol. 21, Issue 11,
pp.1151-1180, 2006.
– “Solving Power and Trust Conflicts through Argumentation in Agent-mediated
Knowledge Distribution”
(C. Chesñevar, R. Brena, J. Aguirre).
Intl. Journal of Knowledge-based and Intelligent Engineering Systems,
special issue on agent-based Knowledge Management.
Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 263-276, 2006. IOS Press.
Chris is on the programme committee for AAAI this year. It is a sign of the times — and of the increasing prominence of argumentation in AI – that this year “Argumentation” is one of the keywords for paper classification.
Simon Buckingham Shum is visiting the group today and giving a seminar this afternoon:
TITLE: Hypermedia Discourse: Contesting Networks of Ideas and Arguments Face-to-Face and on the Net
ABSTRACT: Why can’t you Google for: “inconsistent ideas” or “metaphors/analogies”? What kind of video player can skip to “the next argument in this meeting”? In this talk I will provide the rationale for, and demonstrations of, Hypermedia Discourse tools, an approach to reading, writing and contesting ideas as hypermedia networks grounded in discourse schemes. The objective is to design usable, interactive discourse representations that are both cognitively and computationally tractable: fluid enough to serve as augmentations to group working memory, yet structured enough to support long term memory. I will describe how such networks can be (i) mapped by multiple analysts to visualize and interrogate the claims and arguments in a literature, and (ii) mapped by a facilitator in real time to manage a team’s information sources, competing interpretations, arguments and decisions, particularly in time-pressured scenarios where harnessing collective intelligence is a priority. I will suggest that given the current geo-political climate, the increasingly distributed, networked nature of work, and the need for trans-disciplinary discourse for wicked problems, there has never been greater need for sensemaking tools to help diverse stakeholders build common ground.
BIO: Simon Buckingham Shum is a Senior Lecturer at the UK Open University’s Knowledge Media Institute. He has worked on the usability and utility of hypertext for mapping meetings and argumentation since his doctoral work on design rationale argumentation in 1990 (Rank Xerox EuroPARC and Univ. York HCI Group). He co-edited “Visualizing Argumentation” (2003), which brings together for the first time the leading practitioners and researchers in argument mapping, and “Knowledge Cartography” (2007, in prep.) will update and broaden this. He is PI/Co-PI on several e-science/social science projects, and is a co-founder of the Compendium Institute whose hypertext tool supports collaborative modelling and sensemaking.
Simon has made his presentation slides available, and discusses the idea at the KMi blog.
