Argumentation for Decision Support

  • Katie Atkinson
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
  • Sanjay Modgil
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4080)


In this paper we describe an application based on a general approach towards modelling practical reasoning through defeasible argumentation. The purpose of the paper is to show how the incorporation of an argumentation component can add value to a collection of existing information agents. The example application is a system for reasoning about the medical treatment of a patient. An agent, called the Drama agent, orchestrates a number of information sources to supply a set of arguments on the basis of which the decision regarding treatment can be taken. We describe the general approach and its instantiation for this application, and illustrate the operation of the system with a running example.


Critical Question Argument Scheme Argumentation Framework Prefer Extension Prevent Blood Clotting 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Atkinson, K.: What Should We Do?: Computational Representation of Persuasive Argument in Practical Reasoning. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., Loui, R.: Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32(4), 337–383 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doutre, S., Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.E.: Explaining preferences with argument position. In: Proceedings of the Ninteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), pp. 1560–1561 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (1969)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Searle, J.R.: Rationality in Action. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tu, S.W., Musen, M.A.: Representation formalisms and computational methods for modeling guideline-based patient care. In: Mussen, M., Stefanelli, M., Heller, B., Loffler, M. (eds.) Proceedings of First European Workshop on Computer-based Support for Clinical Guidelines and Protocols, Leipzig, Germany. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Walton, D.N.: Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katie Atkinson
    • 1
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
    • 1
  • Sanjay Modgil
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Advanced Computation LabCancer Research UKLondonUK

Personalised recommendations