A Comparative Study of Defeasible Argumentation and Non-monotonic Fuzzy Reasoning for Elderly Survival Prediction Using Biomarkers
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.
KeywordsArgumentation Theory Non-monotonic reasoning Defeasible reasoning Fuzzy reasoning Possibility Theory Biomarkers
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.
- 12.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)Google Scholar
- 13.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_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.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)Google Scholar
- 15.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_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.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)Google Scholar
- 17.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 2010Google Scholar
- 19.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)Google Scholar
- 20.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_33CrossRefGoogle Scholar