Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Group Structured Reasoning for Coalescing Group Decisions

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we present the notion of structured reasoning through a model, called the Generic/Actual Argument Model (GAAM). The model which has been used as a computational representation for machine modelling of reasoning and for hybrid combinations of human and machine reasoning can be used as a coalescent framework for decision making. Whilst the notion of structuring reasoning is not new, structured reasoning is advanced as a technique where group consensus on reasoning structures at various levels can be used to facilitate the comprehension of complex reasoning particularly where there are multiple perspectives. For an issue, the approach provides a scaffolding structure for cognitive co-operation and a normative reasoning structure against which group participants can identify points of difference and points in common as well as the nature of the differences and similarities. Intra-group transparency characterized by the ability to recognise points in common and understand the nature of differences is important to the process of coalescing group decisions that carry maximum group support.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afshar F, Yearwood J, Stranieri A (2002) Capturing consensus knowledge from multiple experts. In: Bramer M (eds) Research and development in intelligent systems XIX. Springer-Verlag, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy R (1989) A theory of legal argumentation: the theory of rational discourse as theory of legal justification. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarado SJ (1990) Understanding editorial text: a computer model of argument comprehension. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Antoniou G (1997) Nonmonotonic reasoning with incomplete and changing information. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (1928) The works of Aristotle, i. Logic (trans: Pickard-Cambridge WA). Chap. Topica, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p 100

  • Ashley KD (1991) Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. Int J Man-Machine Stud 34(6): 753–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avery J, Yearwood J, Stranieri A (2001) An argumentation based multi-agent system for eTourism dialogue. In: Proceedings first international workshop on hybrid intelligent systems HIS 2001. Adelaide, Australia, pp 497–512

  • Ball WJ (1994) Using Virgil to analyse public policy arguments: a system based on Toulmin’s informal logic. Social Sci Comput Rev 12(1): 26–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum L (1982) Argument molecules: a functional representation of argument structure. In: Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence, American Association for Artificial Intelligence. AAAI, Pittsburg, PA, pp 63–65

  • Branting LK (2000) Reasoning with rules and precedents—a computational model of legal analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbogim D, Robertson D, Lee J (2000) Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. Knowl Eng Rev 15(2): 119–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesnevar CI, Maguitman AG, Loui RP (2000) Logical models of argument. ACM Comput Surv 32(4): 337–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie GC (1986) An essay on discretion. Duke Law J 35(5): 747–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick JP (1987) Conceptual retrieval and case law. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, pp 106–115

  • Dick JP (1991) A conceptual, case-relation representation of text for intelligent retrieval. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

  • Doyle J (1992) Rationality and its roles in reasoning. Comput Intell 8(2): 376–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engisch K (1960) Logische Studien zur Gesetzesanwendung, 2nd edn. Heidelberg Press, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensel D, Horrocks I, Harmelen FV, Decker S, Erdmann M, Klein M (2000) OIL in a nutshell. In: Dieng R (ed) Proceedings of the 12th European workshop on knowledge acquisition, modeling, and management (EKAW’00). Springer-Verlag, pp 1–16

  • Fox J, Das S (2000) Safe and sound: artificial intelligence in hazardous applications. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA/Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TF, Karacapilidis NI (1997) The zeno argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, pp 10–18

  • Grennan W (1997) Informal logic: issues and techniques. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage JC (1997) Reasoning with rules: an essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic, vol 27 of law and philosophy library. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirokawa R, Pace R (1983) A descriptive investigation of the possible communication-based reasons for effective and ineffective group decision-making. Commun Monogr 50: 363–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn RE (1998) Using argumentation analysis to examine history and status of a major debate in artificial intelligence and philosophy. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, SIC SAT

  • Kulpa Z (1994) Diagrammatic representation and reasoning. Mach Graph Vis 3(1/2): 77–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin F, Shoham Y (1989) Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on knowledge representation and reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp 245–255

  • Loui RP (1987) Defeat among arguments: a system of defensible inference. Comput Intell 3(3): 100–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loui R, Norman J, Altepeter J, Pinkard D, Craven D, Lindsay J, Foltz M (1997) Progress in room 5: a testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 207–214

  • MacCormick N (1978) Legal reasoning and legal theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall CC (1989) Representing the structure of legal argument. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, USA, pp 121–127

  • Marshall CC, Halasz FG, Rogers RA, Janssen WC Jr. (1991) Aquanet: a hypertext tool to hold your knowledge in place. In: Proceedings of the third annual acm conference on hypertext. ACM Press, pp 261–275

  • Newell A (1982) The knowledge level. Artif Intell 18(1): 87–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nute D (1988) Defeasible reasoning. In: Fetzer JH (eds) Aspects of artificial intelligence. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, pp 251–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer J (1997) Legal merit arguments, legal semiotics and the design of legal knowledge-based systems. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL’97, pp 198–205

  • Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1971/1958) The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation (trans: Wilkinson J, Weaver P). University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame/London. (French language original first published in 1958)

  • Poole DL (1988) A logical framework for default reasoning. Artif Intell 36: 27–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H (1993a) A logical framework for modelling legal argument. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, pp 1–9

  • Prakken H (1993b) Logical tools for modelling legal argument. Ph.D. thesis, Vrije University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

  • Raz J (1990) Practical reason and norms, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J (1989) Rational analysis for a problematic world: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1973) The structure of ill structured problems. Artif Intell 4: 181–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh MP (2000) A social semantics for agent communications languages. In: Dignum F, Chaib-draa B, Weigand H (eds) Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-99), Workshop on agent communication languages. Springer

  • Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J (2001a) Copyright regulation with argumentation agents. Inf Commun Technol Law 10(1): 123–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J (2001b) WebShell: the development of web based expert system shells. In: Research and development in expert systems XVIII. Proceedings of ES2001- The twenty-first SGES international conference on knowledge based systems and applied artificial intelligence. Springer Verlag, London, pp 245–258

  • Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J, Gawler M, Lewis B (1999) A hybrid rule-neural approach for the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family law in Australia. Artif Intell Law 7(2–3): 153–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stranieri A, Yearwood J, Meikle T (2000) The dependency of discretion and consistency on knowledge representation. Int Rev Comput Law Technol 14(3): 325–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J, Yearwood J (2001) Argumentation structures that integrate dialectical and non-dialectical reasoning. Knowl Eng Rev 16(4): 331–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stranieri A, Yearwood J, Gervasoni S, Garner S, Deans C, Johnstone A (2004) Web-based decision support for structured reasoning in health. In: Karin W, Cesnik B (eds) Proceedings of the combined conferences of the twelfth national health informatics conference, pp 180–185

  • Toulmin S (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij B (1999) Automated argument assistance for lawyers. In: Proceedings of the seventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL’99, pp 43–52

  • Walton DN (1996a) Argument structure: a pragmatic theory. Toronto studies in philosophy. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN (1996b) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Yearwood J, Stranieri A (1999) Integration of retrieval, reasoning and drafting for refugee law: A third generation legal knowledge based system. In: Proceedings of seventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL’99, pp 117–125

  • Yearwood J, Stranieri A (2002a) An argumentation shell for supporting the development and drafting of legal documents. Inf Commun Technol Law 11(1)

  • Yearwood J, Stranieri A (2002b) Generic Arguments: a framework for supporting online deliberative discourse. In: Enabling organisations and society through information systems, Proceedings of the thirteenth Australasian conference on information systems (ACIS’2002), pp 337–346

  • Yearwood J, Stranieri A (2006) The generic/actual argument model for practical reasoning. Decis Support Syst 41(2): 358–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yearwood J, Stranieri A, Avery J (2001) Negotiation and argumentation based agents to facilitate eCommerce. In: Proceedings of the International conference on advances in infrastructure for electronic business, Science and education on the internet, SSGRR2001, pp 100–109

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Informatics and Applied Optimization, University of Ballarat, PO Box 663, Victoria, Australia

    John Yearwood & Andrew Stranieri

Authors
  1. John Yearwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Stranieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Yearwood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yearwood, J., Stranieri, A. Group Structured Reasoning for Coalescing Group Decisions. Group Decis Negot 19, 77–105 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-009-9162-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-009-9162-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation