Abstract
This paper summarises our position on the use of symbolic methods for reasoning under uncertainty, and argumentation in particular. Our view is that argumentation offers a complement to numerical methods for reasoning about belief, and a general framework within which many competing approaches can be understood. In applications we have found that argumentation offers a variety of benefits for practical reasoning systems. The presentation is historical, emphasising the reasons which motivated the development of the argumentation framework, drawing primarily on work carried out by researchers at the Imperial Cancer Research Fund since about 1980.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ambler, S. (1992) A categorical approach to the semantics of argumentation, Technical Report 606, Department of Computer Science, Queen Mary and Westfield College.
Ambler, S. and Krause, P. (1992) Enriched categories in the semantics of evidential reasoning, Technical Report 153 Advanced Computation Laboratory, Imperial Cancer Research Fund.
Ambler, S. and Krause, P. (1992) The development of a “Logic of Argumentation”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Processing and the Management of Uncertainty, Palma.
Chard, T. (1991) Qualitative probability versus quantitative probability in clinical diagnosis: a study using a computer simulation, Medical Decision Making, 11, 38–41.
Elvang-Gøransson, M. and Hunter, A. (1993) Argumentative logics—reasoning with classically inconsistent information, Data and Knowledge Engineering, 16, 125–145.
Elvang-Gøransson, M., Krause, P. and Fox, J. (1993) A logical approach to handling uncertainty, Proceedings of the Workshop on Modelling Problems in Control and Supervision of Complex Dynamic Systems, Lyngby, Denmark.
Elvang-Gøransson, M., Krause, P. and Fox, J. (1993) Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information, Proceedings of 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Washington, D. C.
Fox, J. (1996) A unified framework for hypothetical and practical reasoning (2): lessons from clinical medicine, Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, (this volume).
Fox, J. (1987) Making decisions under the influence of knowledge, in Modelling Cognition, P. Morris ed., John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Fox, J. (1980) Making decisions under the influence of memory, Psychological Review, 87, 2, 190–211.
Fox, J., Barber D., and Bardhan, K. D. (1980) Alternatives to Bayes? A quantitative comparison with rule-based diagnostic inference, Methods of Information in Medicine, 19, 210–215.
Fox, J., Clark, D. A., Glowinski, A. Gordon, C. and O'Neil, M. J. (1990) Using predicate logic to integrate qualitative reasoning and classical decision theory, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 20, 347–357.
Fox, J., Glowinski, A. Gordon, C. Hajnal, S. and O'Neil, M. (1990) Logic engineering for knowledge engineering: design and implementation of the Oxford System of Medicine, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 2, 323–339.
Fox, J., Glowinski, A. J., O'Neil, M. J. and Clark, D. A. (1988) Decision making as a logical process, Proceedings of Expert Systems '88, Cambridge.
Fox, J., Krause, P. and Ambler, S. (1992) Arguments, contradictions and practical reasoning, Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vienna.
Fox, J., Myers, C. D., Greaves, M. F., and Pegram, S. (1985) Knowledge acquisition for expert systems: experience in leukemia diagnosis, Methods of Information in Medicine, 24, 65–72.
Fox, J., O'Neil, M., Glowinski, A. J. and Clark, D. (1988) A logic of decision making, Illinois Interdisciplinary Workshop on Decision Making, Urbana, Illinois.
Krause, P., Ambler, S., Elvang-Gørannson, M. and Fox, J. (1994) A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty, Computational Intelligence, 11, 113–131.
Krause, P., Ambler, S. and Fox, J. (1993) The development of a “Logic of Argumentation”, in Advanced Methods in Artificial Intelligence, B. Bouchon-Meunier, L. Valverde and R. R. Yager eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Krause, P., Ambler, S. and Fox, J. (1993) ATP user manual, Technical Report 187, Advanced Computation Laboratory, Imperial Cancer Research Fund.
Krause, P. J., Fox, J. and Ambler S. (1992) Argumentation as a unifying concept for reasoning under uncertainty, Technical Report 166, Advanced Computation Laboratory, Imperial Cancer Research Fund.
O'Neil, M. and Glowinski, A. (1990) Evaluating and validating very large knowledge-based systems, Medical Informatics, 3, 237–251.
Parsons, S. (1996) Defining normative systems for qualitative argumentation, Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, (this volume).
Shanteau, J. (1987) Psychological characteristics of expert decision makers, in Expert Judgement and Expert Systems, J. Mumpower ed., NATO ASI Series, vol F35.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Parsons, S., Fox, J. (1996). Argumentation and decision making: A position paper. In: Gabbay, D.M., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds) Practical Reasoning. FAPR 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1085. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61313-7_113
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61313-7_113
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61313-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68454-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive