Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Formalizing Cognitive Acceptance of Arguments: Durum Wheat Selection Interdisciplinary Study

  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we present an interdisciplinary approach that concerns the problem of argument acceptance in an agronomy setting. We propose a computational cognitive model for argument acceptance based on the dual model system in cognitive psychology. We apply it in an agronomy setting within a French national project on durum wheat.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.agence-nationale-recherche.fr/?Projet=ANR-13-ALID-0002.

  2. In Calì et al. (2012) they are called “Tuple Generating Dependencies” (TGD) clauses.

  3. We assume here that the effort of exploration is somewhat included in the cognitive effort associated to the rule, but in further research a statistical approach could be used: in a reasoning path the cost of exploration could take into account the number of all the possible formulas (with their different possible instantiations) that could apply at each step.

  4. All details about the Durum wheat base, as well as ways of downloading and using it can be found at http://www.lirmm.fr/~arioua/dkb/.

  5. Please note that for \(ca \in \,[22,33[\), we have both acceptable \(_{\kappa ,ca}(arg)\) and rejectable \(_{\kappa ,ca}(arg)\).

References

  • Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., & Parsons, S. (2002). An argumentation-based semantics for agent communication languages. In Proceedings of ECAI 2002.

  • Arioua, A., & Croitoru, M. (2015). Formalizing explanatory dialogues. In SUM’2015: 9th International Conference on scalable uncertainty management, Quebec, Canada.

  • Arioua, A., & Croitoru, M. (2016). Dialectical characterization of consistent query explanation with existential rules. Proceedings of FLAIRS, 2016, 621–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arioua, A., & Croitoru, M. (2016). A dialectical proof theory for universal acceptance in coherent logic-based argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of ECAI 2016, (page to appear).

  • Beevers, C. G. (2005). Cognitive vulnerability to depression: A dual process model. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(7), 975–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (2001). A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence, 128, 203–235.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M., & De Saint Cyr, F. D. (2015). Towards a dual process cognitive model for argument evaluation (regular paper). In C. Beierle & A. Dekhtyar (Eds), International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM), Quebec, 16/09/2015-18/09/2015, LNAI, (pp. 298–313). Springer http://www.springerlink.com.

  • Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M., & De Saint Cyr Bannay, F. D. (2015). Towards a dual process cognitive model for argument evaluation. In: SUM: Scalable Uncertainty Management, volume LNCS of Scalable Uncertainty Management (pp. 298–313). Quebec City, Canada.

  • Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M., de Saint-Cyr, F. D., & Hecham, A. (2016). Substantive irrationality in cognitive systems. In Proceedings of ECAI 2016, (page to appear).

  • Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1984). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 673–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calì, A., Gottlob, G., & Lukasiewicz, T. (2012). A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 14, 57–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chein, M., Mugnier, M.-L., & Croitoru, M. (2013). Visual reasoning with graph-based mechanisms: The good, the better and the best. Knowledge Engineering Review, 28(Special Issue 3), 249–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croitoru, M., Arioua, A., Buche, P., & Thomopoulos, R. (2015). Using explanation dialogue for durum wheat knowledge base acquisition. Technical report, UMR IATE, LIRMM, GraphIK, University of Montpellier.

  • Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., & Mamede, S. (2013). Cognitive debiasing 1: Origins of bias and theory of debiasing. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(Suppl 2), 58–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dvorák, W., Pichler, R., & Woltran, S. (2010). Towards fixed-parameter tractable algorithms for argumentation. In: KR, (pp. 112–122).

  • Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49(8), 709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. T., & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(4), 382–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. T., & Frankish, K. E. (2009). In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, J. B. (2004). Acceptable premises: An epistemic approach to an informal logic problem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Good, I. J. (1971). The probabilistic explication of information, evidence, surprise, causality, explanation, and utility. In V.P. Godambe and D.A. Sprott (Eds.), Foundations of Statistical Inference: Proc. Symp. on the Foundations of Statistical Inference (pp. 108–141). Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

  • Hecham, A., Croitoru, M., Bisquert, P., & Buche, P. (2016). Extending gwaps for building profile aware associative networks. In: Proceedings of ICCS 2016, (pp. 43–58).

  • Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, S., Sycara, K., & Evanchik, A. (1998). Argumentation in negotiation: A formal model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 104(1–2), 1–69.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Quillan, M. R. (1966). Semantic memory. Technical report, DTIC Document.

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1976). From substantive to procedural rationality. In T. J. Kastelein, S. K. Kuipers, W. A. Nijenhuis & G. R. Wagenaar (Eds.), 25 years of economic theory (pp. 65–86). Springer.  

  • Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., Toplak, M. E., & West, R. F. (2008). The development of rational thought: A taxonomy of heuristics and biases. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 36, 251–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terwilliger, J. D., & Ott, J. (1994). Handbook of human genetic linkage. Baltimore: JHU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vannella, D., Jurgens, D., Scarfini, D., Toscani, D., & Navigli, Roberto. (2014). Validating and extending semantic knowledge bases using video games with a purpose. ACL, 1, 1294–1304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Ahn, L. (2006). Games with a purpose. Computer, 39(6), 92–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. R., & Sharples, S. (2015). Evaluation of human work. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our uppermost gratitude to Gabriele Kern-Isberner and the anonymous reviewers for their extremely helpful comments and remarks. We would like to thank as well Patrice Buche for his help regarding the French ANR DURDUR project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GraphIK, LIRMM, Univ. Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Madalina Croitoru & Abdelraouf Hecham

  2. GraphIK, INRA, Montpellier, France

    Pierre Bisquert

  3. IRIT, Univ. Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France

    Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr

Authors
  1. Pierre Bisquert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Madalina Croitoru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abdelraouf Hecham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M., Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F. et al. Formalizing Cognitive Acceptance of Arguments: Durum Wheat Selection Interdisciplinary Study. Minds & Machines 27, 233–252 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-017-9424-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-017-9424-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation