Argumentation schemes for clinical decision support

This paper demonstrates how argumentation schemes can be used in decision support systems that help clinicians in making treatment decisions. The work builds on the use of computational argumentation, a rigorous approach to reasoning with complex data that places strong emphasis on being able to justify and explain the decisions that are recommended. The main contribution of the paper is to present a novel set of specialised argumentation schemes that can be used in the context of a clinical decision support system to assist in reasoning about what treatments to offer. These schemes provide a mechanism for capturing clinical reasoning in such a way that it can be handled by the formal reasoning mechanisms of formal argumentation. The paper describes how the integration between argumentation schemes and formal argumentation may be carried out, sketches how this is achieved by an implementation that we have created and illustrates the overall process on a small set of case studies.

VivesDebate: A New Annotated Multilingual Corpus of Argumentation in a Debate Tournament

The application of the latest Natural Language Processing breakthroughs in computational argumentation has shown promising results, which have raised the interest in this area of research. However, the available corpora with argumentative annotations are often limited to a very specific purpose or are not of adequate size to take advantage of state-of-the-art deep learning techniques (e.g., deep neural networks). In this paper, we present VivesDebate, a large, richly annotated and versatile professional debate corpus for computational argumentation research. The corpus has been created from 29 transcripts of a debate tournament in Catalan and has been machine-translated into Spanish and English. The annotation contains argumentative propositions, argumentative relations, debate interactions and professional evaluations of the arguments and argumentation. The presented corpus can be useful for research on a heterogeneous set of computational argumentation underlying tasks such as Argument Mining, Argument Analysis, Argument Evaluation or Argument Generation, among others. All this makes VivesDebate a valuable resource for computational argumentation research within the context of massive corpora aimed at Natural Language Processing tasks.

Argumentative XAI: A Survey

Explainable AI (XAI) has been investigated for decades and, together with AI itself, has witnessed unprecedented growth in recent years. Among various approaches to XAI, argumentative models have been advocated in both the AI and social science literature, as their dialectical nature appears to match some basic desirable features of the explanation activity. In this survey we overview XAI approaches built using methods from the field of computational argumentation, leveraging its wide array of reasoning abstractions and explanation delivery methods. We overview the literature focusing on different types of explanation (intrinsic and post-hoc), different models with which argumentation-based explanations are deployed, different forms of delivery, and different argumentation frameworks they use. We also lay out a roadmap for future work.

Mining Property-driven Graphical Explanations for Data-centric AI from Argumentation Frameworks

Adoption of AI-equipped systems and their societal benefits are heavily dependent on human understanding of the rationale behind the systems’ outputs. Such systems’ widespread inability to explain their outputs causes human mistrust and doubts regarding their regulatory compliance. Research in psychology points to the amenability of argumentation as a paradigm for human reasoning, advocating that humans developed reasoning in order to argue. We here overview a number of approaches using computational argumentation frameworks as the scaffolding for explanations for human consumption. Our argumentation frameworks are automatically mined from data and data-centric methods. We define explanations as graphs obtained from these argumentation frameworks, which are customisable by means of properties. We illustrate our methods with various consumer-oriented tasks in the media and entertainment industry, providing reasoning outputs that can be explained to consumers, and that consumers can directly interact with to give rise to improved recommendations.

Argumentation Mining: Techniques and Emerging Trends

By Argument we mean persuasion of a reason or reasons in support of a claim or evidence. In Artificial Intelligence computational argumentation is the field dealing with computational logic upon which many models of argumentation have been suggested. The goal of Argumentation Mining is to automatically extract structured arguments from the unstructured text. It has the potential of extracting information from web and social media, making it one of the most sought after research area. Some recent advances in computational logic and Machine Learning methods do provide a new insight to the applications for policy making, economic sciences, legal, medical and information technology. Different models have been proposed for argumentation mining with different machine learning methods applied on the argumentation frameworks proposed for this particular mining task. In this survey article we will review the existing systems and applications and will cover the three categories of argumentation models and a comparative table depicting the most frequently applied ML method. This survey paper will also cover the various challenges of the field with the new potential perspectives in this new emerging research area.

Assumption-based argumentation with preferences and goals for patient-centric reasoning with interacting clinical guidelines

A paramount, yet unresolved issue in personalised medicine is that of automated reasoning with clinical guidelines in multimorbidity settings. This entails enabling machines to use computerised generic clinical guideline recommendations and patient-specific information to yield patient-tailored recommendations where interactions arising due to multimorbidities are resolved. This problem is further complicated by patient management desiderata, in particular the need to account for patient-centric goals as well as preferences of various parties involved. We propose to solve this problem of automated reasoning with interacting guideline recommendations in the context of a given patient by means of computational argumentation. In particular, we advance a structured argumentation formalism ABA+G (short for Assumption-Based Argumentation with Preferences (ABA+) and Goals) for integrating and reasoning with information about recommendations, interactions, patient’s state, preferences and prioritised goals. ABA+G combines assumption-based reasoning with preferences and goal-driven selection among reasoning outcomes. Specifically, we assume defeasible applicability of guideline recommendations with the general goal of patient well-being, resolve interactions (conflicts and otherwise undesirable situations) among recommendations based on the state and preferences of the patient, and employ patient-centered goals to suggest interaction-resolving, goal-importance maximising and preference-adhering recommendations. We use a well-established Transition-based Medical Recommendation model for representing guideline recommendations and identifying interactions thereof, and map the components in question, together with the given patient’s state, prioritised goals, and preferences over actions, to ABA+G for automated reasoning. In this, we follow principles of patient management and establish corresponding theoretical properties as well as illustrate our approach in realistic personalised clinical reasoning scenaria.

RationalGRL: A framework for argumentation and goal modeling

Goal-oriented requirements modeling approaches aim to capture the intentions of the stakeholders involved in the development of an information system as goals and tasks. The process of constructing such goal models usually involves discussions between a requirements engineer and a group of stakeholders. Not all the arguments in such discussions can be captured as goals or tasks: e.g., the discussion whether to accept or reject a certain goal and the rationale for acceptance or rejection cannot be captured in goal models. In this paper, we apply techniques from computational argumentation to a goal modeling approach by using a coding analysis in which stakeholders discuss requirements for a Traffic Simulator. We combine a simplified version of a traditional goal model, the Goal-oriented Requirements Language (GRL), with ideas from argumentation on schemes for practical reasoning into a new framework (RationalGRL). RationalGRL provides a formal semantics and tool support to capture the discussions and outcomes of the argumentation process that leads to a goal model. We also define the RationalGRL development process to create a RationalGRL model.