No abstract

We use computational argumentation to both analyse and generate solutions for reasoning in multimorbidity about consistent recommendations, according to different patient-centric goals. Reasoning in this setting carries a complexity related to the multiple variables involved. These variables reflect the co-existing health conditions that should be considered when defining a proper therapy. However, current Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) are not equipped to deal with such a situation. They do not go beyond the straightforward application of the rules that build their knowledge base and simple interpretation of Computer-Interpretable Guidelines (CIGs). We provide a computational argumentation system equipped with goal-seeking mechanisms to combine independently generated recommendations, with the ability to resolve conflicts and generate explanations for its results. We also discuss its advantages over and relation to Multiple-criteria Decisionmaking (MCDM) in this particular setting.

Scientific research in the formal sciences comes in multiple degrees of formality: fully formal work; rigorous proofs that practitioners know to be formalizable in principle; and informal work like rough proof sketches and considerations about the advantages and disadvantages of various formal systems. This informal work includes informal and semi-formal debates between formal scientists, e.g. about the acceptability of foundational principles and proposed axiomatizations. In this paper, we propose to use the methodology of structured argumentation theory to produce a formal model of such informal and semi-formal debates in the formal sciences. For this purpose, we propose ASPIC-END, an adaptation of the structured argumentation framework ASPIC+ which can incorporate natural deduction style arguments and explanations. We illustrate the applicability of the framework to debates in the formal sciences by presenting a simple model of some arguments about proposed solutions to the Liar paradox, and by discussing a more extensivebut still preliminary -model of parts of the debate that mathematicians had about the Axiom of Choice in the early 20th century.

We propose ASPIC-END, an adaptation of the structured argumentation framework ASPIC+ which can incorporate explanations and natural deduction style arguments. We discuss an instantiation of ASPIC-END that models argumentation about explanations of semantic paradoxes (e.g. the Liar paradox), and we show that ASPIC-END satisfies rationality postulates akin to those satisfied by ASPIC+.

No abstract