Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation

Abstract

This paper presents a novel argumentation framework to support Issue-Based Information System style debates on design alternatives, by providing an automatic quantitative evaluation of the positions put forward. It also identifies several formal properties of the proposed quantitative argumentation framework and compares it with existing non-numerical abstract argumentation formalisms. Finally, the paper describes the integration of the proposed approach within the design Visual Understanding Environment software tool along with three case studies in engineering design. The case studies show the potential for a competitive advantage of the proposed approach with respect to state-of-the-art engineering design methods.

Keywords:

• argumentation
• debate
• design rationale
• Issue-Based Information System (IBIS)
• decision support

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. The authors thank V. Evripidou and E. Marfisi for their support and cooperation. Aurisicchio and Toni thank the support of a Faculty of Engineering EPSRC Internal Project on ‘Engineering design knowledge capture and feedback’.

Conflict of interest disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Pietro Baroni http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5439-9561

Francesca Toni http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8194-1459

Marco Aurisicchio http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1119-4336

Giorgio Bertanza http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2965-023X

Notes

1. Here, separability amounts to absence of interaction between attackers and supporters.

2. The expression of f_supp corresponds to the T-conorm operator also referred to as probabilistic sum in the literature (Klement, Mesiar, & Pap, 2000).

3. http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/designengineering/tools/designvue.

4. The code is available from the designVUE web site.