基于IBIS的协商对话框架及共识评价方法

Abstract

Abstract:

Deliberation is an effective method to solve complex problems. In the process of deliberation, real-time analysis and evaluation of group consensus will help to activate group thinking and promote the convergence of group thinking. In this paper, a deliberation dialogue frameworks(DDF) based on IBIS is proposed, in which argumentation and uncertainty reasoning are introduced to calculate the certainty-factors of propositions. Firstly, the basic IBIS model is extended to multi-level argumentation structure with propositions about issues not only be put forward but also be argued. The process of argumentation about proposition is described as dialogue tree, and the all the deliberation is described as dialogue forest. Then, the uncertain of argument's premise and the argument's strength were quantified with certainty-factor, and the dialogue forest is mapped into fuzzy petri net, called FPND. Using the parallel computing ability of petri nets, the final certainty-factors of proposition are calculated by matrix iterative operation. Finally, an example is used to verify the validity and rationality of the proposed method.

Key words: Deliberation dialogue, Argumentation, Uncertainty reasoning, Fuzzy Petri net, Consensus evaluation

CLC Number:

TB181

Caiquan Xiong,Xuan Li,Na Deng,Dahai Xia. Deliberation Dialogue Framework Based on IBIS and Methods of Consensus Evaluation[J].Acta mathematica scientia,Series A, 2019, 39(5): 1213-1227.

Trendmd

Figures/Tables 7

References 31

1	Modgil S, Toni F, Bex F, et al. The added value of argumentation//Ossowski S. Agreement Technologies. Dordrecht: Springer, 2013: 357-403
2	唐锡晋, 刘怡君. 从群体支持系统到创造力支持系统. 系统工程理论与实践, 2006, 26 (5): 63- 71 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6788.2006.05.008
	Tang X J , Liu Y J . From group support system to creativity support system. Systems Engineering-Theory and Practice, 2006, 26 (5): 63- 71 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6788.2006.05.008
3	Heras S , Jordán J , Botti V , Juliàn V . Case-based strategies for argumentation dialogues in agent societies. Information Sciences, 2013, 223: 1- 30
4	Walton D N , Krabbe E C W . Commitment in Dialogue:Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. New York: State University of New York Press, 1995
5	Hulstijn J. Dialogue Models for Inquiry and Transaction[D]. Enschede: Universiteit Twente, 2000
6	Governatori G , Maher M J , Antoniou G , Billington D . Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2004, 14 (5): 675- 702 doi: 10.1093/logcom/14.5.675
7	McBurney P , Parsons S . Representing epistemic uncertainty by means of dialectical argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 2001, 32: 125- 169 doi: 10.1023/A:1016757315265
8	Amgoud L, Maudet N, Parsons S. Modelling dialogues using argumentation//Werner B. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems. Boston: IEEE Press, 2000: 7-12
9	Cayrol C , Lagasquie-Schiex M C . Bipolarity in argumentation graphs:Towards a better understanding. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2013, 54 (7): 876- 899 doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2013.03.001
10	Prakken H . Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2005, 15 (6): 1009- 1040 doi: 10.1093/logcom/exi046
11	Cayrol C, Lagasquie-Schiex M C. On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks//Godo L. Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. Berlin: Springer, 2005: 378-389
12	Fox J , Glasspool D , Grecu D , et al. Argumentation-based inference and decision making -A medical perspective. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2007, 22 (6): 34- 41 doi: 10.1109/MIS.2007.102
13	Tolchinsky P , Modgil S , Atkinson K , et al. Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2012, 25 (2): 209- 259 doi: 10.1007/s10458-011-9174-5
14	Kok E M, Meyer J, Prakken H, Vreeswijk G. A formal argumentation framework for deliberation dialogues//McBurney P, Rahwan I, Parsons S. Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: 7th International Workshop, ArgMAS 2010 Revised, Selected and Invited Papers. Berlin: Springer, 2011: 31-48
15	McBurney P , Hitchcock D , Parsons S . The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2007, 22 (1): 95- 132
16	Toulmin S E . The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958
17	Kunz W , Rittel H . Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Berkeley: University of California, 1970
18	Dung P M . On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 1995, 77 (2): 321- 357
19	Gordon T F , Prakken H , Walton D . The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 2007, 171 (10): 875- 896
20	Gordon T F, Karacapilidis N. The Zeno argumentation framework//Zeleznikow J, Hunter D, Branting K. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: ACM, 1997: 10-18
21	Karacapilidis N , Papadias D . Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making:the HERMES system. Information Systems, 2001, 26 (4): 259- 277
22	Baroni P , Romano M , Toni F , et al. Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation. Argument & Computation, 2015, 6 (1): 24- 49
23	Baroni P, Romano M, Toni F, et al. An argumentation-based approach for automatic evaluation of design debates//Leite J, Son T. Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems. Berlin: Springer, 2013: 340-356
24	Chanda N, Liu X F. Intelligent analysis of software architecture rationale for collaborative software design//2015 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems. Atlanta:IEEE, 2015:287-294
25	Sigman S , Liu X F . A computational argumentation methodology for capturing and analyzing design rationale arising from multiple perspectives. Information and Software Technology, 2003, 45 (3): 113- 122
26	谭俊峰, 张朋柱, 黄丽宁. 综合集成研讨厅中的研讨信息组织模型. 系统工程理论与实践, 2005, 25 (1): 86- 92 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6788.2005.01.013
	Tan J F , Zhang P Z , Huang L N . A group argumentation information-structuring model in hall for workshop of metasynthetic engineering. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2005, 25 (1): 86- 92 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6788.2005.01.013
27	陈俊良, 陈超, 姜鑫, 张震. 基于IBIS和Toulmin辩论形式的群体研讨模型. 计算机应用, 2011, 31 (9): 2526- 2529
	Chen J l , Chen C , Jiang X , Zhang Z . Group argumentation model based on IBIS and Toulmin's argument schema. Journal of Computer Applications, 2011, 31 (9): 2526- 2529
28	Kunz W , Rittel H W J . Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Berkeley: University of California, 1970
29	Murata T . Petri nets:Properties, analysis and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1989, 77 (4): 541- 580 doi: 10.1109/5.24143
30	Wang W M , Peng X , Zhu G N , et al. Dynamic representation of fuzzy knowledge based on fuzzy petri net and genetic-particle swarm optimization. Expert Systems with Applications, 2014, 41 (4): 1369- 1376
31	Shortliffe E H , Buchanan B G . A model of inexact reasoning in medicine. Mathematical Biosciences, 1975, 23 (3/4): 351- 379

变迁	输入库所	输出库所	变迁可信度	输入库所托肯值
$t_1^1$	$\{P^1_2, P^1_3\}$	$\{P^1_1\}$	0.9	0.5, 0.9
$t_2^1$	$\{P^1_4, P^1_5, P^1_6\}$	$\{P^1_2\}$	$-0.9$	0.8, 0.9, 0.7
$t_3^1$	$\{P^1_7\}$	$\{P^1_2\}$	0.8	0.6
$t_4^1$	$\{P^1_8, P^1_9\}$	$\{P^1_3\}$	$-0.8$	0.7, 0.6
$t_5^1$	$\{P^1_{10}, P^1_{11}\}$	$\{P^1_5\}$	$ -0.7 $	0.6, 0.8
$t_1^2$	$\{P^2_2, P^2_3\}$	$\{P^2_1\}$	0.7	0.8, 0.3
$t_2^2$	$\{P^2_4\}$	$\{P^2_3\}$	$ -0.8 $	0.5
$t_1^3$	$\{P^3_2\}$	$\{P^3_1\}$	0.5	0.5

时间节点	$P^1_1$	$P^2_1$	$P^3_1$	$P^1_2$	$P^1_3$	$P^1_5$	$P^2_3$
0	-	-	-	0.5	0.9	0.9	0.3
1	0.45	0.21	0.4	0.3558	0.468	0.522	0.18
2	0.3202	0.126	0.4	0.5096	0.468	0.522	0.18
3	0.4212	0.126	0.4	0.5096	0.468	0.522	0.18

Deliberation Dialogue Framework Based on IBIS and Methods of Consensus Evaluation

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 7

References 31

Related Articles 0

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 10