Scrutable plan enactment via argumentation and natural language generation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Autonomous systems suffer from opacity due to the potentially large number of sophisticated interactions among many parties and how these influence the outcomes of the systems. It is very difficult for humans to scrutinise, understand and, ultimately, work with such systems. To address this shortcoming, we developed a demonstrator which uses formal argumentation techniques, coupled with natural language generation, to explain the rationale of a hybrid software-human many-party joint plan during its enactment.
منابع مشابه
On Natural Language Generation of Formal Argumentation
In this paper we provide a first analysis of the research questions that arise when dealing with the problem of communicating pieces of formal argumentation through natural language interfaces. It is a generally held opinion that formal models of argumentation naturally capture human argument, and some preliminary studies have focused on justifying this view. Unfortunately, the results are not ...
متن کاملPlanning with Incomplete Information
Planning is a natural domain of application for frameworks of reasoning about actions and change. In this paper we study how one such framework, the Language E , can form the basis for planning under (possibly) incomplete information. We define two types of plans: weak and safe plans, and propose a planner, called the E-Planner, which is often able to extend an initial weak plan into a safe pla...
متن کاملNatural language generation of biomedical argumentation for lay audiences
This article presents an architecture for natural language generation of biomedical argumentation. The goal is to reconstruct the normative arguments that a domain expert would provide, in a manner that is transparent to a lay audience. Transparency means that an argument’s structure and functional components are accessible to its audience. Transparency is necessary before an audience can fully...
متن کاملApplications of Argumentation Schemes
Argumentation schemes capture common, stereotypical patterns of reasoning which are nondeductive and nonmonotonic. As interest in understanding these schemes from a theoretical point of view grows, so too does an awareness within computational work that these schemes might yield powerful techniques in a range of domains. This paper aims to perform two functions. First, to briefly review the lit...
متن کاملAAAI 1991 SpringSymposium Series Reports
Traditionally, research approaches to building models of argument knowledge and belief have differed in terms of objectives, scope, and methodology. For example, in rhetoric, the groundswarrant-claim model has been used to analyze the structure of arguments. In psycholinguistics, researchers have analyzed the discourse structure of expository text by applying theories of discourse and schema co...
متن کامل