Page 232 - Artificial Intelligence for the Internet of Everything
P. 232

Accessing Validity of Argumentation of Agents of the Internet of Everything  213


              are associated with autonomy and trust such as the trust of autonomous
              machines in human behavior or the trust of humans in autonomous machine
              behavior. Proper claim validation enables the handling of threats to auton-
              omy and trust (cyber attacks, competitive threats, deception) and the fun-
              damental barriers to system survivability (Russell, Moskowitz, &
              Raglin, 2017; Sibley, Coyne, & Sherwood, 2017). Validation and verifi-
              cation play important roles in autonomous systems. Analytic validation and
              verification techniques, and model checking can assist with the design of
              autonomous IoT control agents in an efficient and reliable manner. This
              can mean earlier identification of false claims in messages and the detection
              of other errors.
                 An important finding of this study is that argumentation structure can be
              discovered via the features of extended discourse representation, combining
              information on how an author organizes his/her thoughts with information
              on how involved agents communicate these thoughts. Once a CDT is
              formed and identified as being correlated to argumentation, a defeasible
              logic program can be built from this tree and the dialectical analysis can val-
              idate the main claim.
                 Although validating agents’ messages, affective argument should not be
              confused with an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy characterized by the
              manipulation of the recipient’s emotions in order to win an argument, espe-
              cially in the absence of factual evidence. This kind of appeal to emotion is a
              type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies.



              REFERENCES
              Alsinet, T., Chesn ˜evar, C. I., Godo, L., & Simari, G. R. (2008). A logic programming frame-
                 work for possibilistic argumentation: formalization and logical properties. Fuzzy Sets and
                 Systems, 159(10), 1208–1228.
              Amgoud, L., Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (2015). Representing and reasoning about arguments
                 mined from texts and dialogues. ECSQARU (pp. 60–71).
              BBC (2018). http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42493918.
              Bondarenko, A., Dung, P., Kowalski, R., & Toni, F. (1997). An abstract, argumentation-
                 theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93,63–101.
              Cabrio, E., & Villata, S. (2012). Combining textual entailment and argumentation theory for
                 supporting online debates interactions. Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the associ-
                 ation for computational linguistics (Vol. 2: Short papers) (pp. 208–212), Association for Com-
                 putational Linguistics.
              Carreyrou (2016). Theranos has struggled with blood tests. https://www.wsj.com/articles/
                 theranos-has-struggled-with-blood-tests.
              Chambers, J. (2014). Are you ready for the Internet of everything? World Economic Forum,
                 January 15. From: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/01/are-you-ready-for-
                 the-internet-of-everything/.
   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237