An argumentation system for eco-efficient packaging material selection

We define a multi-criteria Decision Support System for designing fresh food packaging.An argumentation module gathering stakeholders' preferences is included in the DSS.The argumentation module computes the consensual stakeholders' preferences.Using the DSS the user will have only one trial to perform validation step. Within the framework of the European project EcoBioCap (ECOefficient BIOdegradable Composite Advanced Packaging), aiming at conceiving the next generation of food packagings, we have designed an argumentation-based tool for management of conflicting viewpoints between preferences expressed by the involved parties (food and packaging industries, health authorities, consumers, waste management authority, etc.). The requirements and user preferences are modeled by several rules provided by the stakeholders expressing their viewpoints and expertise. Based on these rules, the argumentation tool computes consensual preferences which are used to parameterize a flexible querying process of a packaging database to retrieve the most relevant solution to pack a given food. In this paper, we recall briefly the principles underlying the reasoning process, and we detail the main functionalities and the architecture of the argumentation tool. We cover the overall reasoning steps starting from formal representation of text arguments and ending by extraction of justified preferences which are sent to the database querying process. Finally, we detail its operational functioning through a real life case study to determine the justifiable choices between recyclable, compostable and biodegradable packaging materials based on stakeholders' arguments.

[1]  Henri Prade,et al.  Decision-Making Process: Concepts and Methods , 2009 .

[2]  Madalina Croitoru,et al.  A Viewpoint Approach to Structured Argumentation , 2013, SGAI Conf..

[3]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Formalising a legal opinion on a legislative proposal in the ASPIC+ framework , 2012, JURIX.

[4]  Henry Prakken,et al.  An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments , 2010, Argument Comput..

[5]  Massimiliano Giacomin,et al.  An SCC Recursive Meta-Algorithm for Computing Preferred Labellings in Abstract Argumentation , 2014, KR.

[6]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Yining Wu,et al.  Between Argument and Conclusion - Argument-based Approaches to Discussion, Inference and Uncertainty , 2012 .

[8]  Gerard Vreeswijk.  An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems , 2006, COMMA.

[9]  Henri Prade,et al.  Using arguments for making and explaining decisions , 2009, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Quaestio-it.com: a social intelligent debating platform , 2014, J. Decis. Syst..

[11]  Katie Atkinson,et al.  Algorithms for decision problems in argument systems under preferred semantics , 2014, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Tudor Groza,et al.  A review of argumentation for the Social Semantic Web , 2013, Semantic Web.

[13]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[14]  Elizabeth Sklar,et al.  ArgTrust: decision making with information from sources of varying trustworthiness , 2013, AAMAS.

[15]  Martin Caminada,et al.  On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argument schemes for two-phase democratic deliberation , 2011, ICAIL.

[17]  Thomas F. Gordon.  Introducing the Carneades web application , 2013, ICAIL.

[18]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Multi-criteria Argument Selection in Persuasion Dialogues , 2011, ArgMAS.

[19]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Elements of Argumentation , 2007, ECSQARU.

[20]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Abdallah Arioua,et al.  Query Failure Explanation in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases: A Dialogical Approach , 2014, SGAI Conf..

[22]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Arguing about Preferences and Decisions , 2010, ArgMAS.

[23]  Pierre Marquis,et al.  Symmetric Argumentation Frameworks , 2005, ECSQARU.

[24]  Chris Reed,et al.  Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation , 2004, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

[25]  Madalina Croitoru,et al.  Conflicting viewpoint relational database querying: an argumentation approach , 2014, AAMAS.

[26]  Paul E. Dunne,et al.  Semi-stable semantics , 2006, J. Log. Comput..

[27]  Mani B. Srivastava,et al.  Argumentation-based collaborative intelligence analysis in CISpaces , 2014, COMMA.

[28]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A general account of argumentation with preferences , 2013, Artif. Intell..

[29]  Madalina Croitoru,et al.  Fuzzy Argumentation System for Decision Support , 2014, IPMU.

[30]  Madalina Croitoru,et al.  A quantitative preference-based structured argumentation system for decision support , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE).

[31]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argument schemes for reasoning with legal cases using values , 2013, ICAIL.

[32]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence , 2009 .

[33]  Sébastien Destercke,et al.  Parameter uncertainties and error propagation in modified atmosphere packaging modelling , 2012 .

[34]  Abdallah Arioua,et al.  On Conceptual Graphs and Explanation of Query Answering under Inconsistency , 2014, ICCS.

[35]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  An introduction to argumentation semantics , 2011, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[36]  Massimiliano Giacomin,et al.  ArgSemSAT: Solving Argumentation Problems Using SAT , 2014, COMMA.

[37]  Sébastien Destercke,et al.  A flexible bipolar querying approach with imprecise data and guaranteed results , 2011, Fuzzy Sets Syst..