Argumentation-Based Agents to Increase Human Organ Availability for Transplant

Tolchinsky, Pancho; Cortés, Ulises; Grecu, Dan

doi:10.1007/978-3-7643-8547-7_5

Cited by 10 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evaluation of the preferred status of arguments may require that a mediator agent assign a partial ordering on arguments, or indeed construct further arguments. An immediate goal for future work is to formalise our proposals described in [16] for the mediator agent's use of Case-Based Reasoning, an 'Acceptability Criteria Knowledge Base' and agent reputations in the evaluation phase. Note that we have described a process whereby DA and RA arguments are submitted to the mediator without an option for making further counter-arguments in response.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is the role of the mediator agent (MA) to assign a partial ordering on the arguments in order to decide a preferred set of arguments. The MA can valuate (and thus order) arguments on the basis of case based reasoning and agents' reputations (see [16]). An example of the latter is when the hospital represented by RA has performed several unsuccessful lung transplants from donors with a smoking history who did not have COPD.…”

Section: Definition 5 Let Af Be An Argumentation Framework (Args Dementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards Formalising Agent Argumentation over the Viability of Human Organs for Transplantation

Modgil

Tolchinsky

Cortés

2005

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper we describe a human organ selection process in which agents argue over whether a given donor's organ is viable for transplantation. This process is framed in the CARREL System; an agent-based organization designed to improve the overall transplant process. We formalize an argumentation based framework that enables CARREL agents to construct and assess arguments for and against the viability of a donor's organ for a given potential recipient. We believe that the use of argumentation has the potential to increase the number of human organs that current selection processes make available for transplantation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Definition 5 Let Af Be An Argumentation Framework (Args Dementioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Formalising Agent Argumentation over the Viability of Human Organs for Transplantation

Modgil

Tolchinsky

Cortés

2005

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…615-675), and the volume Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence edited by Rahwan and Simari (2009), show the broad spectrum of computational applications of argumentation theoretical notions and insights. Aside from the aforementioned e-learning and argument mining, there are, for example, computer programs to support legal practitioners in constructing and evaluating legal cases (e.g., Verheij 2005), medical applications where argumentation is used to improve the computerised distribution of donor organs (e.g., Tolchinsky et al 2008), software programs to draw diagrams of argumentation structures (e.g., Gordon 2010), and online repositories of analytically annotated argumentative texts (e.g., Bex et al 2013).…”

Section: Formalisation In Preparation Of Computerisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech Acts in a Dialogue Game Formalisation of Critical Discussion

Visser

2016

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper a dialogue game for critical discussion is developed. The dialogue game is a formalisation of the ideal discussion model that is central to the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. The formalisation is intended as a preparatory step to facilitate the development of computational tools to support the pragma-dialectical study of argumentation. An important dimension of the pragmadialectical discussion model is the role played by speech acts. The central issue addressed in this paper is how the speech act perspective can be accommodated in the formalisation as a dialogue game. The starting point is an existing 'basic' dialogue game for critical discussion, in which speech acts are not addressed. The speech act perspective is introduced into the dialogue game by changing the rules that govern the moves that can be made and the commitments that these result in, while the rules for the beginning, for the end, and for the structure of the dialogue game remain unchanged. The revision of the move rules is based on the distribution of speech acts in the pragma-dialectical discussion model. The revision of the commitment rules is based on the felicity conditions that are associated with those speech acts.

show abstract

“…The key ideas were sketched out in [55], and proposed in the context of a medical agent-based organisation (CARREL) [58] intended to facilitate the offer and allocation of human organs for transplantation. In [56] we proposed the use of scenario specific argument schemes and critical question, tailored for medical applications, to define a protocol-based exchange of arguments which models the agents' deliberation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [57] we introduced the ProCLAIM model and focused on the role of a Case-Based Reasoning component. In [54] we presented a mature version of the above mentioned medical application, and in [53] we described its prototype implementation as the main large scale demonstrator system of the FP6 European project ASPIC 2 . Subsequent work focused on generalising ProCLAIM so as to be applicable to domains other than the medical.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions

Tolchinsky

Modgil

Atkinson

et al. 2011

Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we present the argument-based model ProCLAIM, intended to provide a setting for heterogeneous agents to deliberate over safety critical actions. To achieve this purpose ProCLAIM features a Mediator Agent with three main tasks: 1) guiding the participating agents in what their valid dialectical moves are at each stage of the dialogue; 2) deciding whether submitted arguments should be accepted on the basis of their relevance; and finally, 3) evaluating the accepted arguments in order to provide an assessment of whether the proposed action should or should not be undertaken. The main focus in this paper is the proposal of a set of reasoning patters, represented in terms of argument schemes and critical questions, intended to automatise deliberations on whether a proposed action can safely be performed. Framed within the ProCLAIM model, we we aim to motivate the importance of these schemes and critical questions for: a) the Mediator Agent's guiding task that allows for a highly focused deliberation; b) the effective participation of heterogeneous agents; and c) enabling the reuse of previous similar deliberations in order to evaluate arguments on an evidential basis.

show abstract

Argumentation-Based Agents to Increase Human Organ Availability for Transplant

Cited by 10 publications

References 8 publications

Towards Formalising Agent Argumentation over the Viability of Human Organs for Transplantation

Towards Formalising Agent Argumentation over the Viability of Human Organs for Transplantation

Speech Acts in a Dialogue Game Formalisation of Critical Discussion

Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About