Skip to main content

Empowering Recommendation Technologies Through Argumentation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence

User support 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 19. Recommender systems are a special class of user support tools that act in cooperation with users, complementing their abilities and augmenting their performance by offering proactive or on-demand, context-sensitive support. Recommender systems are mostly based on machine learning and information retrieval algorithms, providing typically suggestions based on quantitative evidence (i.e. measures of similarity between objects or users). The inference process which led to such suggestions is mostly unknown (i.e. ‘black-box’ metaphor). Although the effectiveness of existing recommenders is remarkable, they still have some serious limitations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. T. Alsinet, C. Chesñevar, L. Godo, S. Sandri, and G. Simari. Formalizing argumentative reasoning in a possibilistic logic programming setting with fuzzy unification. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 48(3):711–729, 2008.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. T. Alsinet, C. Chesñevar, L. Godo, and G. Simari. A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation: Formalization and logical properties. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 159,(10):1208–1228, 2008.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. L. Amgoud and M. Serrurier. Agents that argue and explain classifications. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 16(2):187–209, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. M. Balabanovic and Y. Shoham. Content-based, collaborative recommendation. Communications of the ACM, 40(3):66–72, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The semantic web. Scientific American, May 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. Brena, J. Aguirre, C. Chesñevar, E. Ramírez, and L. Garrido. Knowledge and information distribution leveraged by intelligent agents. Knowledge and Information Systems, 12(2):203–227, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. J. Budzik, K. Hammond, and L. Birnbaum. Information access in context. Knowledge based systems, 14(1–2):37–53, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. R. Burke. Hybrid recommender systems: Survey and experiments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 12(4):331–370, 2002.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. C. Chesñevar, J. McGinnis, S. Modgil, I. Rahwan, C. Reed, G. Simari, M. South, G. Vreeswijk, and S. Wilmott. Towards an argument interchange format. Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4):293–316, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. C. Chesñevar, A. Maguitman, and R. Loui. Logical Models of Argument. ACM Computing Surveys, 32(4):337–383, Dec. 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. C. Chesñevar, A. Maguitman, and M. Sabaté. An argument-based decision support system for assessing natural language usage on the basis of the web corpus. International Journal of Intelligent Systems (IJIS), 21(11):1151–1180, 2006.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. C. Chesñevar, A. Maguitman, and G. Simari. Argument-Based Critics and Recommenders: AQualitative Perspective on User Support Systems. Journal of Data and Knowledge Engineering, 59(2):293–319, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. D. Engelbart. Augmenting human intellect: A conceptual framework. Summary report, Stanford Research Institute, on Contract AF 49(638)-1024, October 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  14. A. García and G. Simari. Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4(1):95–138, 2004.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. S. Gómez, C. Chesñevar, and G. Simari. Defeasible reasoning in web-based forms through argumentation. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making (IJITDM), 7(1):71–101, Mar. 2008.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. M. González, C. Chesñevar, C. Collazos, and G. Simari. Modelling shared knowledge and shared knowledge awareness in cscl scenarios through automated argumentation systems. In J. M. Haake, S. F. Ochoa, and A. Cechich, editors, CRIWG, volume 4715 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 207–222. Springer, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  17. G. Governatori and A. Stranieri. Towards the application of association rules for defeasible rules discovery. In Legal Knowledge & Information Systems, pages 63–75. JURIX, IOS Press, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. Hunter. Hybrid argumentation systems for structured news reports. Knowledge Engineering Review, pages 295–329, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  19. J. Konstan. Introduction to recommender systems: Algorithms and evaluation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 22(1):1–4, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. F. Linton, D. Joy, and H. Schaefer. Building user and expert models by long-term observation of application usage. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on User modeling, pages 129–138. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  21. M. Mozina, J. Zabkar, and I. Bratko. Argument based machine learning. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15):922–937, 2007.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. J. O’Donovan and B. Smyth. Trust in recommender systems. In IUI’05: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pages 167–174, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. M. Pazzani and D. Billsus. Content-based recommendation systems. In P. Brusilovsky, A. Kobsa and W. Nejdl, editors, The Adaptive Web, Methods and Strategies of Web Personalization, volume 4321 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 325–341. Springer, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  24. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. The role of logic in computational models of legal argument: A critical survey. In A. C. Kakas and F. Sadri, editors, Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond, volume 2408 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 342–381. Springer, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  25. H. Prakken and G. Vreeswijk. Logical Systems for Defeasible Argumentation. In D. Gabbay and F.Guenther, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pages 219–318. Kluwer, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  26. I. Rahwan. Mass argumentation and the semantic web. Journal of Web Semantics, 6(1):29–37, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  27. I. Rahwan, F. Zablith, and C. Reed. Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15):897–921, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. J. Sandvig, B. Mobasher, and R. Burke. A survey of collaborative recommendation and the robustness of model-based algorithms. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 31(2):3–13, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  29. R. Schenkel, T. Crecelius, M. Kacimi, T. Neumann, J. Parreira, M. Spaniol, and G. Weikum. Social wisdom for search and recommendation. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 31(2):40–49, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  30. G. Simari and R. Loui. AMathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 53:125–157, 1992.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. B. Verheij. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2):291–324, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. D. Walton. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  33. M. Wardeh, T. Bench-Capon, and F. Coenen. Arguments from experience: The padua protocol. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, and A. Hunter, editors, COMMA, volume 172 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 405–416. IOS Press, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  34. P. Zhang, J. Sun, and H. Chen. Frame-based argumentation for group decision task generation and identification. Decision Support Systems, 39:643–659, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (PICT 2005 - 32373), by CONICET (Argentina), by Projects TIN2006-15662-C02-01 and TIN2008-06596-C02-01 (MEC, Spain), and PGI Projects 24/ZN10, 24/N023 and 24/N020 (SGCyT, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Argentina).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to CarlosIván Chesñevar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag US

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A.G., González, M.P. (2009). Empowering Recommendation Technologies Through Argumentation. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-98196-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-98197-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics