Advertisement

Mixed-Initiative Argumentation: Group Decision Support in Medicine

  • Chee Fon Chang
  • Andrew Miller
  • Aditya Ghose
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 27)

Abstract

This paper identifies ways in which traditional approaches to argumentation can be modified to meet the needs of practical group decision support. Three specific modifications are proposed. Firstly, a framework for accrual-based argumentation is presented. Second, a framework for outcome-driven decision rationale management is proposed that permits a novel conception of mixed-initiative argumentation. The framework is evaluated in the context of group decision support in medicine.

Keywords

Abstract Argumentation System Group Decision Support Knowledge Management System 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for Defeasible Argumentation, 2nd edn. Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, pp. 218–319. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lu, J., Lajoie, S.P.: Supporting medical decision making with argumentation tools. Contemporary Educational Psychology 33(3), 425–442 (2008); Collaborative Discourse, Argumentation, and LearningCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glasspool, D., Fox, J., Castillo, F.D., Monaghan, V.E.L.: Interactive decision support for medical planning. In: Dojat, M., Keravnou, E.T., Barahona, P. (eds.) AIME 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2780, pp. 335–339. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fox, J., Glasspool, D., Grecu, D., Modgil, S., South, M., Patkar, V.: Argumentation-based inference and decision making–a medical perspective. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22(6), 34–41 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Verheij, B.H.: Reason based logic and legal knowledge representation. In: Carr, I., Narayanan, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th National Conference on Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence, University of Exeter, pp. 154–165 (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4), 481–518 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P.M.: An argumentation-theoretic foundation for logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming 22(2), 151–171 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Allen, J.F.: Mixed-initiative interaction. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(5), 14–23 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Science, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chee Fon Chang
    • 1
  • Andrew Miller
    • 2
  • Aditya Ghose
    • 1
  1. 1.Decision Systems Lab and Centre for Oncology Informatics, School of Computer Science & Software EnggUniversity of WollongongAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Oncology Informatics, Illawarra Health and Medical Research InstituteUniversity of WollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations