Arguing with Justifications between Collaborating Agents

Letia, Ioan Alfred; Groza, Adrian

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33152-7_7

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This concept is used also in our approach, implying that jointly learning from argumentation can achieve the success of knowledge-creation. The combination of knowledge, dialog and reasoning individuals is also discussed in [14].…”

Section: Related Work and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harmonization of conflicting medical opinions using argumentation protocols and textual entailment - a case study on Parkinson disease

Groza

Nagy

2016

2016 IEEE 12th International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing (ICCP)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Parkinson's disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, affecting more than 1.2 million people in Europe. Medications are available for the management of its symptoms, but the exact cause of the disease is unknown and there is currently no cure on the market. To better understand the relations between new findings and current medical knowledge, we need tools able to analyse published medical papers based on natural language processing and tools capable to identify various relationships of new findings with the current medical knowledge. Our work aims to fill the above technological gap. To identify conflicting information in medical documents, we enact textual entailment technology. To encapsulate existing medical knowledge, we rely on ontologies. To connect the formal axioms in ontologies with natural text in medical articles, we exploit ontology verbalisation techniques. To assess the level of disagreement between human agents with respect to a medical issue, we rely on fuzzy aggregation. To harmonize this disagreement, we design mediation protocols within a multi-agent framework.

show abstract

Section: Related Work and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harmonization of conflicting medical opinions using argumentation protocols and textual entailment - a case study on Parkinson disease

Groza

Nagy

2016

2016 IEEE 12th International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing (ICCP)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A complementary line of research is given by argumentative writing support systems [13]. Assisting students in essays with structured and sound arguments is an important educational goal [20].…”

Section: Discussion and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enacting textual entailment and ontologies for automated essay grading in chemical domain

Groza

Szabo

2015

2015 16th IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Informatics (CINTI)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a system for automated essay grading using ontologies and textual entailment. The process of textual entailment is guided by hypotheses, which are extracted from a domain ontology. Textual entailment checks if the truth of the hypothesis follows from a given text. We enact textual entailment to compare students answer to a model answer obtained from ontology. We validated the solution against various essays written by students in the chemistry domain.

show abstract

“…In this paper, we were interested to analyse, people's arguments. These may lead to an interesting interplay between arguments, justifications and explanations [17,30].…”

Section: Tools For Climate Change Understandingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change opinions in online debate sites

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debate sites in social media provide a unified platform for citizens to discuss controversial questions and to put forward their ideas and arguments on the issues of common interest. Opinions of citizens may provide useful knowledge to stakeholders but manual analysis of arguments in debate sites is tedious, while computational support to this end has been rather scarce. We focus here on developing a technical instrumentation for making sense of a set of online arguments and aggregating them into usable results for policy making and climate science communication. Our objectives are: (i) to aggregate arguments posted for a certain debate topic, (ii) to consolidate opinions posted under several but related topics either in the same or different debate site, and (iii) to identify possible linguistic characteristics of the argumentative texts. For the first objective, we propose a voting method based on subjective logic [13]. For the second objective, we assess the semantic similarity between two debate topics based on textual entailment [28]. For the third objective, we employ various existing methods for lexical analysis such as frequency analysis or readability indexes. Although we focused here on the climate change, the method can be applied to any domain.

show abstract

Arguing with Justifications between Collaborating Agents

Cited by 11 publications

References 18 publications

Harmonization of conflicting medical opinions using argumentation protocols and textual entailment - a case study on Parkinson disease

Harmonization of conflicting medical opinions using argumentation protocols and textual entailment - a case study on Parkinson disease

Enacting textual entailment and ontologies for automated essay grading in chemical domain

Climate change opinions in online debate sites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About