Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions

Abstract

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.

Argumentation Schemes for the Collaborative Debate of Requirement Risks in Software Projects

“…Similar to [10][11][12], a domain-specific specification of argumentation schemes is exploited in the schemes proposed here. In [10], although the dialectical process modeled as the analysis of scheme-based pros and cons has a connection with how humans make qualitative decisions, the deliberation of solutions to RM problems is typically grounded on the additional utilization of more informal argumentation acts, where the dialogue used by project stakeholders is not limited to pros and cons kinds of scheme-based arguments.…”

“…In [10], although the dialectical process modeled as the analysis of scheme-based pros and cons has a connection with how humans make qualitative decisions, the deliberation of solutions to RM problems is typically grounded on the additional utilization of more informal argumentation acts, where the dialogue used by project stakeholders is not limited to pros and cons kinds of scheme-based arguments. In [11], schemes are designed to support users in the analysis of the nature of inconsistencies in experimental results in Biology.…”

“…In [10], an argumentation model proposed the use of schemes in the formalization of a dialogue protocol for agent communication. The protocol focuses on the presentation and computation of scheme-based arguments in favor of and against decisions, aiming to help users in the deliberation about the viability of organ transplants.…”

“…Such a scheme model presents a template for an argument type in an application problem, where this template can be used by stakeholders to elaborate and analyze argument instances to be advanced in their debates. As exploited in different applications [10][11][12][13], argumentation schemes can also be proposed so that they are used in the collaborative management of requirement risks in software projects.…”

Case-Based Argumentation in Agent Societies

“…Moreover, the negotiation strategy is inferred dynamically from the information of the case-base and concurrent negotiations are allowed. with ProCLAIM, a new selection model based on argumentation [Tolchinsky et al, 2006a;Tolchinsky et al, 2006c;Tolchinsky et al, 2006b;Tolchinsky et al, 2011]. In CARREL+, a donor agent (DA) and a set of recipient agents (RAs) argue about the viability of the organ transplant to some recipient.…”