Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 handwiki
Dean Liu
 -- 1185 2022-10-08 05:41:27

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Video Production Services to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
HandWiki. Argument Technology. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/28410 (accessed on 17 November 2024).
HandWiki. Argument Technology. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/28410. Accessed November 17, 2024.
HandWiki. "Argument Technology" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/28410 (accessed November 17, 2024).
HandWiki. (2022, October 08). Argument Technology. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/28410
HandWiki. "Argument Technology." Encyclopedia. Web. 08 October, 2022.
Argument Technology
Edit
The content is sourced from: https://handwiki.org/wiki/Engineering:Argument_technology

Argument technology is a sub-field of artificial intelligence that focuses on applying computational techniques to the creation, identification, analysis, navigation, evaluation and visualisation of arguments and debates. In the 1980s and 1990s, philosophical theories of arguments in general, and argumentation theory in particular, were leveraged to handle key computational challenges, such as modeling non-monotonic and defeasible reasoning and designing robust coordination protocols for multi-agent systems. At the same time, mechanisms for computing semantics of Argumentation frameworks were introduced as a way of providing a calculus of opposition for computing what it is reasonable to believe in the context of conflicting arguments. With these foundations in place, the area was kick-started by a workshop held in the Scottish Highlands in 2000, the result of which was a book coauthored by philosophers of argument, rhetoricians, legal scholars and AI researchers. Since then, the area has been supported by various dedicated events such as the International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA) which has run annually since 2001; the International Workshop on Argument in Multi Agent Systems (ArgMAS) annually since 2004; the Workshop on Argument Mining, annually since 2014, and the Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), biennially since 2006. Since 2010, the field has also had its own journal, Argument & Computation, which was published by Taylor & Francis until 2016 and since then by IOS Press. One of the challenges that argument technology faced was a lack of standardisation in the representation and underlying conception of argument in machine readable terms. Many different software tools for manual argument analysis, in particular, developed idiosyncratic and ad hoc ways of representing arguments which reflected differing underlying ways of conceiving of argumentative structure. This lack of standardisation also meant that there was no interchange between tools or between research projects, and little re-use of data resources that were often expensive to create. To tackle this problem, the Argument Interchange Format set out to establish a common standard that captured the minimal common features of argumentation which could then be extended in different settings. Since about 2018, argument technology has been growing rapidly, with, for example, IBM's Grand Challenge, Project Debater, results for which were published in Nature in March 2021; German research funder, DFG's nationwide research programme on Robust Argumentation Machines, RATIO, begun in 2019; and UK nationwide deployment of The Evidence Toolkit by the BBC in 2019. A 2021 video narrated by Stephen Fry provides a summary of the societal motivations for work in argument technology. Argument technology has applications in a variety of domains, including education, healthcare, policy making, political science, intelligence analysis and risk management and has a variety of sub-fields, methodologies and technologies.

intelligence analysis artificial intelligence software tools

1. Technologies

1.1. Argument Assistant

An argument assistant is a software tool which support users when writing arguments. Argument assistants can help users compose content, review content from one other, including in dialogical contexts. In addition to Web services, such functionalities can be provided through the plugin architectures of word processor software or those of Web browsers. Internet forums, for instance, can be greatly enhanced by such software tools and services.

1.2. Argument Blogging

ArguBlogging is software which allows its users to select portions of hypertext on webpages in their Web browsers and to agree or disagree with the selected content, posting their arguments to their blogs with linked argument data.[1] It is implemented as a bookmarklet, adding functionality to Web browsers and interoperating with blogging platforms such as Blogger and Tumblr.[1]

1.3. Argument Mapping

Argument maps are visual, diagrammatic representations of arguments. Such visual diagrams facilitate diagrammatic reasoning and promote one's ability to grasp and to make sense of information rapidly and readily. Argument maps can provide structured, semi-formal frameworks for representing arguments using interactive visual language.

1.4. Argument Mining

Argument mining, or argumentation mining, is a research area within the natural language processing field. The goal of argument mining is the automatic extraction and identification of argumentative structures from natural language text with the aid of computer programs.

1.5. Argument Search

An argument search engine is a search engine that is given a topic as a user query and returns a list of arguments for and against the topic[2][3] or about that topic.[4] Such engines could be used to support informed decision-making or to help debaters prepare for debates.

1.6. Automated Argumentative Essay Scoring

The goal of automated argumentative essay scoring systems is to assist students in improving their writing skills by measuring the quality of their argumentative content.[5][6]

1.7. Debate Technology

Debate technology focuses on human-machine interaction and in particular providing systems that support, monitor and engage in debate. One of the most high-profile examples of debating technology is IBM's Project Debater[7] which combines scripted communication with very large-scale processing of news articles to identify and construct arguments on the fly in a competitive debating setting. Debating technology also encompasses tools aimed at providing insight into debates, typically using techniques from data science. These analytics have been developed in both academic[8] and commercial[9] settings.

1.8. Decision Support System

Argument technology can reduce both individual and group biases and facilitate more accurate decisions. Argument-based decision support systems do so by helping users to distinguish between claims and the evidence supporting them, and express their confidence in and evaluate the strength of evidence of competing claims.[10] They have been used to improve predictions of housing market trends,[10] risk analysis,[11] ethical and legal decision making.

Ethical decision support system

An ethical decision support system is a decision support system which supports users in moral reasoning and decision-making.[12][13]

Legal decision support system

A legal decision support system is a decision support system which supports users in legal reasoning and decision-making.

1.9. Explainable Artificial Intelligence

An explainable or transparent artificial intelligence system is an artificial intelligence system whose actions can be easily understood by humans.

1.10. Intelligent Tutoring System

An intelligent tutoring system is a computer system that aims to provide immediate and customized instruction or feedback to learners, usually without requiring intervention from a human teacher. The intersection of argument technology and intelligent tutoring systems includes computer systems which aim to provide instruction in: critical thinking, argumentation,[14] ethics,[15] law,[16] mathematics,[17] and philosophy.

1.11. Legal Expert System

A legal expert system is a domain-specific expert system that uses artificial intelligence to emulate the decision-making abilities of a human expert in the field of law.

1.12. Machine Ethics

Machine ethics is a part of the ethics of artificial intelligence concerned with the moral behavior of artificially intelligent beings. As humans argue with respect to morality and moral behavior, argument can be envisioned as a component of machine ethics systems and moral reasoning components.

1.13. Proof Assistant

In computer science and mathematical logic, a proof assistant or interactive theorem prover is a software tool to assist with the development of formal proofs by human-machine collaboration. This involves some sort of interactive proof editor, or other interface, with which a human can guide the search for proofs, the details of which are stored in, and some steps provided by, a computer.

1.14. Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations of argument technology include privacy, transparency, societal concerns, and diversity in representation. These factors cut across different levels such as technology, user interface design, user, service context, and society.[18]

References

  1. Bex, Floris J.; Snaith, Mark; Lawrence, John; Reed, Chris (March 2014). "ArguBlogging: an application for the argument web". Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 25: 9–15. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2014.02.002. http://www.florisbex.com/papers/bexJWS.pdf. 
  2. Aharoni, Ehud (2014). "Claims on demand–an initial demonstration of a system for automatic detection and polarity identification of context dependent claims in massive corpora". Proceedings of COLING 2014: 6–9. https://aclanthology.org/C14-2002/. 
  3. Ajjour, Yamen (2019). "Data Acquisition for Argument Search: The args.me corpus.". 42nd German Conference on Artificial Intelligence (KI 2019): 48–59. https://webis.de/data/args-me-corpus.html. 
  4. Lawrence, John (2012). "AIFdb: Infrastructure for the Argument Web.". Computational Models of Argument (COMMA): 515–516. https://people.cs.pitt.edu/~huynv/research/argument-mining/AIFdb%20Infrastructure%20for%20the%20Argument%20Web.pdf. 
  5. Stab, Christian; Gurevych, Iryna (2014). "Identifying argumentative discourse structures in persuasive essays". Proceedings of EMNLP 2014: 46–56. doi:10.3115/v1/D14-1006. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D14-1006. 
  6. Green, Nancy L. (2013). "Towards automated analysis of student arguments". in Lane, H. Chad; Yacef, Kalina; Mostow, Jack et al.. Artificial intelligence in education: 16th international conference, AIED 2013, Memphis, TN, USA, July 9–13, 2013: proceedings. Lecture notes in computer science. 7926. Berlin; New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 591–594. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_66. ISBN 9783642391118.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-642-39112-5_66
  7. Slonim, Noam; Bilu, Yonatan; Alzate, Carlos; Bar-Haim, Roy; Bogin, Ben; Bonin, Francesca; Choshen, Leshem; Cohen-Karlik, Edo et al. (March 2021). "An autonomous debating system" (in en). Nature 591 (7850): 379–384. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03215-w. ISSN 1476-4687. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03215-w. 
  8. For example: "Argument Analytics". http://analytics.arg.tech. Retrieved 11 August 2020. 
  9. For example: "Kialo". http://www.kialo.com. Retrieved 11 August 2020. 
  10. Introne, Joshua; Iandoli, Luca (2014-08-01). "Improving decision-making performance through argumentation: An argument-based decision support system to compute with evidence" (in en). Decision Support Systems 64: 79–89. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2014.04.005. ISSN 0167-9236. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923614001262. 
  11. Hansson, Sven Ove; Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude (2018-12-02). "Argument-based decision support for risk analysis". Journal of Risk Research 21 (12): 1449–1464. doi:10.1080/13669877.2017.1313767. ISSN 1366-9877. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1313767. 
  12. Mancherjee, Kevin; Sodan, Angela C. (September 2004). "Can computer tools support ethical decision making?". ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society 34 (2): 1. doi:10.1145/1052791.1052792.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1145%2F1052791.1052792
  13. Mathieson, Kieran (December 2007). "Towards a design science of ethical decision support". Journal of Business Ethics 76 (3): 269–292. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9281-4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5149088. 
  14. Loll, Frank; Pinkwart, Niels; Scheuer, Oliver; McLaren, Bruce M. (July 2009). "Towards a flexible intelligent tutoring system for argumentation". 2009 Ninth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 15–17 July 2009. IEEE. pp. 647–648. doi:10.1109/ICALT.2009.138. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221424916. 
  15. Goldin, Ilya M.; Ashley, Kevin D.; Pinkus, Rosa L. (May 2001). "Introducing PETE: computer support for teaching ethics". ICAIL '01: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 94–98. doi:10.1145/383535.383546. ISBN 978-1-58113-368-4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2536062. 
  16. Ashley, Kevin D.; Aleven, Vincent (May 1991). "Toward an intelligent tutoring system for teaching law students to argue with cases". ICAIL '91: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 42–52. doi:10.1145/112646.112651. ISBN 978-0-89791-399-7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221539404. 
  17. Ritter, Steven; Anderson, John R.; Koedinger, Kenneth R.; Corbett, Albert (April 2007). "Cognitive tutor: applied research in mathematics education". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14 (2): 249–255. doi:10.3758/bf03194060. PMID 17694909. http://pact.cs.cmu.edu/koedinger/pubs/Ritter%20Anderson%20Koedinger%20Corbett%202007.pdf. 
  18. Brüggemeier, Birgit; Lalone, Philip (January 2022). "Perceptions and reactions to conversational privacy initiated by a conversational user interface" (in en). Computer Speech & Language 71: 101269. doi:10.1016/j.csl.2021.101269. ISSN 0885-2308. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0885230821000747. 
More
©Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons-Attribution ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Others
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
HandWiki
View Times: 1.3K
Entry Collection: HandWiki
Revision: 1 time (View History)
Update Date: 08 Oct 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    ScholarVision Creations
    Feedback