Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation

Abstract

This paper presents a novel argumentation framework to support Issue-Based Information System style debates on design alternatives, by providing an automatic quantitative evaluation of the positions put forward. It also identifies several formal properties of the proposed quantitative argumentation framework and compares it with existing non-numerical abstract argumentation formalisms. Finally, the paper describes the integration of the proposed approach within the design Visual Understanding Environment software tool along with three case studies in engineering design. The case studies show the potential for a competitive advantage of the proposed approach with respect to state-of-the-art engineering design methods.Keywords: argumentation; debate; design rationale; Issue-Based Information System (IBIS); decision support Engineering design is often described as an information-processing activity based on problem-solving within the constraints of bounded rationality (Simon, 1996;Simon & Newell, 1971). It consists of decomposing an initial problem into a range of sub-problems, proposing and assessing partial solutions, and integrating them as to satisfy the overall problem. This process is collaborative and often involves communication between non-co-located engineers. The development and communication of design solutions require engineers to form and share design rationale, that is, the argumentation in favour or against proposed designs.These aspects of the engineering design process have led to the development (Kunz & Rittel, 1970) and subsequent investigation (Buckingham Shum & Hammond, 1994;Fischer, Lemke, McCall, & Morch, 1991) of the issue-based information system (IBIS) method, a graph-based formalisation of the decisions made during a design process along with the reasons why they were made. The IBIS method envisions a decision-making process where problems (or issues) are given solutions (or answers) after a thorough debate involving technical, economical, life, environmental and safety considerations. It also provides means to actively develop, communicate and record the reasons (or arguments) in favour or against the options explored during the design process. Initially, IBIS was conceived purely as a conceptual information system and its first implementations were paper-based and totally operated by hand. However, over time several software tools supporting editing and visualisation of IBIS graphs have been developed, for example, Compendium, DRed and design Visual Understanding Environment (designVUE) (e.g. see Aurisicchio & Bracewell, 2013;Buckingham Shum et al., 2006). These IBIS-based tools,

Identifying Malicious Behavior in Multi-party Bipolar Argumentation Debates

“…as in [3], and (2) methods for determining a numerical strength, e.g. as in [5,2]. We shall focus on the latter approach, but we will not commit to any specific method until Section 6.…”

“…-Argument evaluation. We used the function σ defined as the final score of [2]. -Generation of user classes.…”

Towards a Knowledge Graph for Science

“…[3,12]) and philosophy (often using specialized formalisms), more work needs to be done to represent argumentation, concept drift and scholarly knowledge evolution in knowledge graphs.…”

Comparing and Integrating Argumentation-Based with Matrix-Based Decision Support in Arg&Dec

“…This work contributes to this research line by investigating the relationships between the recently introduced QuAD (Quantitative Argumentation Debate) frameworks [2,3], based on the IBIS (Issue Based Information System) model [13] and quantitative argumentation, and the decision matrix method [15] commonly adopted in engineering for design decision-making.…”

“…QuAD frameworks [2,3] arise from a combination of the IBIS model [13,6,11] and a novel quantitative argumentation approach. We recall here the main underlying ideas and refer the reader to [3] for a detailed description and comparison with related formalisms, including abstract [10] and bipolar [7] argumentation.…”