Abstract
Computational argumentation has been gaining momentum as a solid theoretical research discipline for inference under uncertainty with incomplete and contradicting knowledge. However, its practical counterpart is underdeveloped, with a lack of studies focused on the investigation of its impact in real-world settings and with real knowledge. In this study, computational argumentation is compared against non-monotonic fuzzy reasoning and evaluated in the domain of biological markers for the prediction of mortality in an elderly population. Different non-monotonic argument-based models and fuzzy reasoning models have been designed using an extensive knowledge base gathered from an expert in the field. An analysis of the true positive and false positive rate of the inferences of such models has been performed. Findings indicate a superior inferential capacity of the designed argument-based models.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barron, E., Lara, J., White, M., Mathers, J.C.: Blood-borne biomarkers of mortality risk: systematic review of cohort studies. PloS One 10(6), e0127550 (2015)
Bench-Capon, T.J., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 619–641 (2007)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif. Intell. 128(1–2), 203–235 (2001)
Castro, J.L., Trillas, E., Zurita, J.M.: Non-monotonic fuzzy reasoning. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 94(2), 217–225 (1998)
Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A.G., Loui, R.P.: Logical models of argument. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 32(4), 337–383 (2000)
De Ruijter, W., et al.: Use of framingham risk score and new biomarkers to predict cardiovascular mortality in older people: population based observational cohort study. BMJ 338, a3083 (2009)
Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibility theory: qualitative and quantitative aspects. In: Smets, P. (ed.) Quantified Representation of Uncertainty and Imprecision, pp. 169–226. Springer, Dordrecht (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1735-9_6
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and N-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)
Gegov, A., Gobalakrishnan, N., Sanders, D.: Rule base compression in fuzzy systems by filtration of non-monotonic rules. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 27(4), 2029–2043 (2014)
Group, B.D.W., et al.: Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 69(3), 89–95 (2001)
Lee, S., Lindquist, K., Segal, M., Covinsky, K.: Development and validation of a prognostic index for 4-year mortality in older adults. Jama 295(7), 801–808 (2006)
Lloyd-Jones, D., Adams, R., Carnethon, M., et al.: Heart disease and stroke statistics 2009 update: a report from the American heart association statistics committee and stroke statistics subcommittee. Circulation 119(3), e21–e181 (2009)
Longo, L.: Argumentation for knowledge representation, conflict resolution, defeasible inference and its integration with machine learning. In: Holzinger, A. (ed.) Machine Learning for Health Informatics. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9605, pp. 183–208. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50478-0_9
Longo, L., Dondio, P.: Defeasible reasoning and argument-based systems in medical fields: an informal overview. In: 2014 IEEE 27th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems, pp. 376–381, New York (2014)
Longo, L., Hederman, L.: Argumentation theory for decision support in health-care: a comparison with machine learning. In: Imamura, K., Usui, S., Shirao, T., Kasamatsu, T., Schwabe, L., Zhong, N. (eds.) BHI 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8211, pp. 168–180. Springer, Cham (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02753-1_17
Longo, L., Kane, B., Hederman, L.: Argumentation theory in health care. In: Proceedings of CBMS 2012, The 25th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems, Rome, Italy, 20–22 June 2012, pp. 1–6 (2012)
Matt, P.A., Morgem, M., Toni, F.: Combining statistics and arguments to compute trust. In: 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Toronto, Canada, vol. 1, pp. 209–216. ACM, May 2010
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum. Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)
Rizzo, L., Longo, L.: Representing and inferring mental workload via defeasible reasoning: a comparison with the NASA task load index and the workload profile. In: 1st Workshop on Advances in Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 126–140 (2017)
Rizzo, L., Majnaric, L., Dondio, P., Longo, L.: An investigation of argumentation theory for the prediction of survival in elderly using biomarkers. In: Iliadis, L., Maglogiannis, I., Plagianakos, V. (eds.) AIAI 2018. IAICT, vol. 519, pp. 385–397. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92007-8_33
Siler, W., Buckley, J.J.: Fuzzy Expert Systems and Fuzzy Reasoning. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)
Strimbu, K., Tavel, J.A.: What are biomarkers? Curr. Opin. HIV AIDS 5(6), 463 (2010)
Acknowledgments
Lucas Middeldorf Rizzo would like to thank CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) for his Science Without Borders scholarship, proc n. 232822/2014-0.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Rizzo, L., Majnaric, L., Longo, L. (2018). A Comparative Study of Defeasible Argumentation and Non-monotonic Fuzzy Reasoning for Elderly Survival Prediction Using Biomarkers. In: Ghidini, C., Magnini, B., Passerini, A., Traverso, P. (eds) AI*IA 2018 – Advances in Artificial Intelligence. AI*IA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11298. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03840-3_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03840-3_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03839-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03840-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)