Abstract
This paper presents a novel argumentation framework to support design debates in an IBIS-based style, by providing an automatic evaluation of the positions put forwards in the debates. It also describes the integration of the proposed approach within the designVUE software tool along with two case studies in engineering design and their initial evaluation by domain experts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
designVUE (February 2013), http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/designengineering/tools/designvue
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., McBurney, P.: PARMENIDES: Facilitating deliberation in democracies. Artificial Intelligence and Law 14(4), 261–275 (2006)
Aurisicchio, M., Bracewell, R.H.: Capturing an integrated design information space with a diagram based approach. Journal of Engineering Design 24, 397–428 (2013)
Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowledge Eng. Review 26(4), 365–410 (2011)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128(1-2), 203–235 (2001)
Buckingham Shum, S.J., Selvin, A.M., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C.B., Nuseibeh, B.: Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC. In: Dutoit, A.H., McCall, R., Mistrik, I., Paech, B. (eds.) Rationale Management in Software Engineering, pp. 111–132. Springer (2006)
Buckingham Shum, S.J.: Cohere: Towards web 2.0 argumentation. In: Besnard, P., Doutre, S., Hunter, A. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, Toulouse, France, May 28-30. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 172, pp. 97–108. IOS Press (2008)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 366–377. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)
Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artificial Intelligence 175(2), 457–486 (2011)
Evripidou, V., Toni, F.: Argumentation and voting for an intelligent user empowering business directory on the web. In: Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR 2012), pp. 209–212 (2012)
Gabbay, D.M.: Equational approach to argumentation networks. Argument & Computation 3(2-3), 87–142 (2012)
Gordon, T.F., Walton, D.: The Carneades argumentation framework - using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, Liverpool, UK, September 11-12 (2006)
Klement, E.P., Mesiar, R., Pap, E.: Triangular Norms. Kluwer (2000)
Kunz, W., Rittel, H.: Issues as elements of information systems. Working Paper 131, Institute of Urban and Regional Development. University of California, Berkeley, California (1970)
Leite, J., Martins, J.: Social abstract argumentation. In: Proc. of the 22nd Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), pp. 2287–2292 (2011)
Matt, P.-A., Toni, F.: A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation. In: Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.) JELIA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5293, pp. 285–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Pahl, G., Beitz, W.: Engineering design: a systematic approach. Tech. rep., Design Council, London, UK (1984)
Pugh, S.: Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Addison-Wesley (1991)
Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill (1980)
Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn. The MIT Press (1996)
Simon, H.A., Newell, A.: Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. American Psychologist 26(2), 145–159 (1971)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Baroni, P., Romano, M., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Bertanza, G. (2013). An Argumentation-Based Approach for Automatic Evaluation of Design Debates. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds) Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems. CLIMA 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8143. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40624-9_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40624-9_21
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-40623-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-40624-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)