Advertisement

Model Based Critique of Policy Proposals

  • Adam Z. Wyner
  • Katie Atkinson
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7444)

Abstract

Citizens may engage with policy issues both to critique official justifications, and to make their own proposals and receive reasons why these are not favoured. Either direction of use can be supported by argumentation schemes based on formal models, which can be used to verify and generate arguments, assimilate objections etc. Previously we have explored the citizen critiquing a justification using an argumentation scheme based on Action-based Alternating Transition Systems. We now present a system that uses the same model to critique proposals from citizens. A prototype has been implemented in Prolog and we illustrate the ideas with code fragments and a running example.

Keywords

Joint Action Critical Question Road Accident Argumentation Scheme Policy Proposal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.: Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 855–874 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., Cartwright, D., Wyner, A.: Semantic models for policy deliberation. In: Proceedings of the 13th ICAIL, pp. 81–90 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument over proposals for action. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(2), 153–171 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H.: A lightweight formal model of two-phase democratic deliberation. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2010, pp. 27–36. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Black, E., Atkinson, K.: Choosing persuasive arguments for action. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2011, pp. 905–912 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Black, E., Hunter, A.: An inquiry dialogue system. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 19(2), 173–209 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cartwright, D., Atkinson, K.: Using computational argumentation to support e-participation. IEEE Intelligent Systems 24(5), 42–52 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Macintosh, A., Gordon, T., Renton, A.: Providing argument support for eparticipation. Journal of Information, Technology and Politics 6(1), 43–59 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowledge Eng. Review 21(2), 163–188 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wooldridge, M., van der Hoek, W.: On obligations and normative ability. J. Applied Logic 3(3-4), 396–420 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wyner, A., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.: Towards a Structured Online Consultation Tool. In: Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., de Bruijn, H. (eds.) ePart 2011. LNCS, vol. 6847, pp. 286–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam Z. Wyner
    • 1
  • Katie Atkinson
    • 1
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations