A taxonomy of argumentation models used for knowledge representation

Abstract

Understanding argumentation and its role in human reasoning has been a continuous subject of investigation for scholars from the ancient Greek philosophers to current researchers in philosophy, logic and artificial intelligence. In recent years, argumentation models have been used in different areas such as knowledge representation, explanation, proof elaboration, commonsense reasoning, logic programming, legal reasoning, decision making, and negotiation. However, these models address quite specific needs and there is need for a conceptual framework that would organize and compare existing argumentation-based models and methods. Such a framework would be very useful 2 especially for researchers and practitioners who want to select appropriate argumentation models or techniques to be incorporated in new software systems with argumentation capabilities. In this paper, we propose such a conceptual framework, based on taxonomy of the most important argumentation models, approaches and systems found in the literature. This framework highlights the similarities and differences between these argumentation models. As an illustration of the practical use of this framework, we present a case study which shows how we used this framework to select and enrich an argumentation model in a knowledge acquisition project which aimed at representing argumentative knowledge contained in texts critiquing military courses of action.

Defeasible Reasoning and Argument-Based Systems in Medical Fields: An Informal Overview

“…These modes are referred to as monological and dialogical argumentation, respectively. Accordingly, monological models [4] focus on the internal structure of an argument, meaning its components (like premises, rules, conclusions) and their relations. Dialogical models focus instead on argument conflicts and their solutions and typically regard arguments as monolithic entities, whose internal structure is abstracted away as far as the conflict resolution process is concerned.…”

“…Roughly speaking, monological models concern the production and construction of arguments while dialogical models concern management of their conflicts, that means the actual arguing process. A third classification of models, referred to as rhetorical, has also been proposed in which neither the monological nor the dialogical structure is considered [4]. Here, the rhetorical nature of arguments is stressed.…”

“…It is based upon the notion of an argumentation scheme and it is useful for identifying and evaluating a variety of argumentation structures in everyday discourse [4]. These argumentation schemes are aimed at capturing common stereotypical patterns of reasoning that are non-monotonic and defeasible in nature.…”

“…Their main aim is modelling internal argument structure, specifying the criterion of acceptance for argument. The reader can refer to [4] for a description of other monological models of arguments.…”

A Decision Reconstruction Support Model

“…These ways range from a simple question-reply pattern to more elaborate argumentation models supported by argumentation theory (as seen, for instance in Refs. [34][35][36][37]. A general GSS information model for decision reconstruction needs to be able to register (document) the in-between steps of the convergence/consensus-building provided by the interconnection of the argumentation elements presented by the group, during the discussion.…”