Activity Qualifiers in an Argumentation Framework as Instruments for Agents When Evaluating Human Activity

  • Esteban GuerreroEmail author
  • Juan Carlos Nieves
  • Marlene Sandlund
  • Helena Lindgren
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9662)


Theoretical frameworks have been developed for enabling software agents to evaluate simple activities such as walking and sitting. However, such frameworks typically do not include methods for how practically dealing with uncertain sensor information. We developed an argument-based method for evaluating complex goal-based activities by adapting two qualifiers: Performance and Capacity defined in the health domain. The first one evaluates what a person does, and the second one how “well” or “bad” an activity is executed. Our aim is to deal with uncertainty and inconsistent information; generate consistent hypotheses about the activity execution; and resemble an expert therapist judgment, where an initial hypothesis assessment can be retracted under new evidence. We conducted a pilot test in order to evaluate our approach using a Physiotherapy assessment test as a goal-based activity. Results show that skeptic argumentation semantics are may be useful for discriminating individuals without physical issues by considering Performance and Capacity; conversely, credulous semantics may be suitable for obtaining information in the evaluation of activity, which an intelligent agent may use for providing personalized assistance in an ambient assisted living environment.


Ambient assisted living Intelligent agents Argumentation theory Argumentation semantics Complex activities Evaluation 



The authors are grateful to the participants in the user studies and to Marianne Silfverskiöld who conducted the case study. Silfversköld’s study was approved by the ethical committee (2014/113-31Ö).


  1. 1.
    Aggarwal, J.K., Ryoo, M.S.: Human activity analysis: a review. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 43(3), 16 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Skepticism relations for comparing argumentation semantics. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 50(6), 854–866 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif. Intell. 128(1–2), 203–235 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5), 286–310 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, L., Hoey, J., Nugent, C.D., Cook, D.J., Yu, Z.: Sensor-based activity recognition. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 42(6), 790–808 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crocker, L., Algina, J.: Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. ERIC, Princeton (1986)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M.: Closure and consistency in logic-associated argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 49, 79–109 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gener. Comput. 9(3–4), 365–385 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guerrero, E., Nieves, J.C., Lindgren, H.: Semantic-based construction of arguments: an answer set programming approach. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 64, 54–74 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kakas, A.C., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abductive logic programming. J. Logic Comput. 2(6), 719–770 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leont’ev, A.N.: Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1978)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lindgren, H., Surie, D., Nilsson, I.: Agent-supported assessment for adaptive and personalized ambient assisted living. In: Corchado, J.M., Pérez, J.B., Hallenborg, K., Golinska, P., Corchuelo, R. (eds.) Trends in Practical Applications of Agents and Multiagent Systems. AISC, vol. 90, pp. 25–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nieves, J.C., Guerrero, E., Lindgren, H.: Reasoning about human activities: an argumentative approach. In: Twelfth Scandinavian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, SCAI 2013, Aalborg, Denmark, 20–22 November, 2013, pp. 195–204 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nute, D.: Defeasible logic. In: Bartenstein, O., Geske, U., Hannebauer, M., Yoshie, O. (eds.) INAP 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2543, pp. 151–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Health Organization. How to use the ICF: A practical manual for using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). WHO (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peterson, B.D.: International classification of functioning, disability and health: an introduction for rehabilitation psychologists. Rehabil. Psychol. 50(2), 105 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning. Cogn. Sci. 11(4), 481–518 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Silfverskiöld, M.: Development and validation of an application for mobile phone with a self-test of standing up from a chair. Master’s thesis, Umeå University, Physiotherapy Department (2015, to appear)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Gelder, A., Ross, K.A., Schlipf, J.S.: The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. J. ACM 38(3), 619–649 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Esteban Guerrero
    • 1
    Email author
  • Juan Carlos Nieves
    • 1
  • Marlene Sandlund
    • 2
  • Helena Lindgren
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing Science DepartmentUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Physiotherapy Unit, Department of Community Medicine and RehabilitationUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations