1 / 22

Rallou Thomopoulos EPI GraphIK In collaboration with: IRIT: L. Amgoud LIRMM: M.L. Mugnier

Argumentation to support decision in agri-food chains. Rallou Thomopoulos EPI GraphIK In collaboration with: IRIT: L. Amgoud LIRMM: M.L. Mugnier IATE: S. Destercke, J. Fortin PhD thesis: J.R. Bourguet. Context. Technicity. Taste. Nutrition. WHAT TO DO ?. Security. Easy-to-use.

sprather
Download Presentation

Rallou Thomopoulos EPI GraphIK In collaboration with: IRIT: L. Amgoud LIRMM: M.L. Mugnier

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Argumentation to support decision in agri-food chains Rallou Thomopoulos EPI GraphIK In collaboration with: IRIT: L. Amgoud LIRMM: M.L. Mugnier IATE: S. Destercke, J. Fortin PhD thesis: J.R. Bourguet

  2. Context Technicity Taste Nutrition WHAT TO DO ? Security Easy-to-use Environment Costs

  3. Millers Bakers Consumers Nutritionists Researchers Government (PNNS) Example T65 ? T80 ?

  4. Increasing nutritional components Avoiding chemical contamination Decreasing costs Proposing a consumer-attractive bread Controling appetite Limitating irritating fibers Limitating salt consumption Avoiding the responsability for consumer security Reducing costly widespread diseases Maintaining sells Preserving the profession’s technicity Example T65 ? T80 ? ~60 identified arguments

  5. Questions • Models for formal representation ? • Support to analyse a complex situation ? • Methods for arbitration (compromise, …) ? • Explanations for a decision ?

  6. Formal approach Combination of both = emerging issue 2 existing frameworks of interest: • Argumentation • Multi-criteria decision

  7. a a b b Argumentation • Abstract argumentation framework (Dung, 1995) (A,R) with: - A a set of arguments - R an attack relation • Other elements: preferences, contexts, …

  8. Argumentation • An argument consists in: • - a set of assumptions (support or premises) • - a conclusion (claim or consequent) • - an implication: the conclusion can be deduced from the assumptions • Different kinds of attack: • - rebutting (negation of the conclusion) • - assumption attack (negation of the assumptions) • - undercutting (negation of the implication)

  9. Prise de décision (Argumentation) REBUTTING Example • COM1 argument  economical profit Change in color T65 → T80 Decreased sales Change in texture health benefit  Satiety • COM2 argument awareness campaign T65 → T80  economical profit communication on cereal products

  10. Prise de décision (Argumentation) ASSUMPTION ATTACK Example • NUTRI1 argument phytic acid T65 → T80  health benefit biodisponibility of essential cations (Zn,Cu,…) • NUTRI2 argument use of natural yeast (sourdough) T65 → T80 phytic acid Acidity

  11. Prise de décision (Argumentation) UNDERCUTTING Example • PNNS argument (part of) Fibers health benefit T65 → T80 • NUTRI3 argument Fibers T65 → T80 insoluble fibers health benefit

  12. Argumentation • Notion of « extension » • Several semantics: - naïve extension: no conflicts + maximal - admissible extension: no conflicts + defense - preferred extension: no conflicts + defense + maximal - complete extension: concerns self-defending arguments - stable extension: no conflicts + attacks external arguments - basic extension: recursively defined

  13. Prise de décision (Argumentation) Example • Milling argument (MILL) extraction rate T65 → T80  economical profit production cost • Baking argument (BAK) fibers T65 → T80  economical profit water flour

  14. Prise de décision (Argumentation) Example NUTRI3 MILL PNNS COM1 NUTRI1 BAK COM2 NUTRI2 PREFERRED EXTENSIONS: • {COM1, NUTRI3, NUTRI2} • {COM2, MILL, BAK, PNNS, NUTRI2} • {COM2, MILL, BAK, NUTRI3, NUTRI2}

  15. Argumentation-based decision • Argument = {S,d,g} with: - S the knowledge that supports the argument - d the supported decision - g a goal (Amgoud and Prade, 2009) • A simple mode of decision : choose the option that is supported by most "acceptable" arguments

  16. Example T65 ? T80 ? (d) (S) T65 contains less peripheric grain layers  Avoiding chemical contamination Peripheric layers are rich in vitamins and minerals  Increasing nutritional components (g) T80 bread requires less flour and more water  Decreasing costs T65 produces more crusty breads  Proposing a consumer-attractive bread First approach: 6 arguments versus 5  T65 T80 increases satiety  Controling appetite T65 contains more soluble fibers  Limitating irritating fibers T80 is consumed in smaller quantities  Limitating salt consumption T65 provides less contammination risks  Avoiding the responsability for consumer security T80 participates in public health control  Reducing costly widespread diseases The market of T65 bread works well  Maintaining sells T65 involves complex fractionation steps by millers  Preserving the profession’s technicity

  17. informed consumers’ 1st goal most consumers’ 1st goal bakers’ 1st goal nutritionists’ 1st goal government’s 1st goal millers’ 1st goal Example T65 ? T80 ? (d) (S) T65 contains less peripheric grain layers  Avoiding chemical contamination Peripheric layers are rich in vitamins and minerals  Increasing nutritional components (g) T80 bread requires less flour and more water  Decreasing costs T65 produces more crusty breads  Proposing a consumer-attractive bread Second approach: Satisfying most actors  T80 T80 increases satiety  Controling appetite T65 contains more soluble fibers  Limitating irritating fibers T80 is consumed in smaller quantities  Limitating salt consumption T65 provides less contammination risks  Avoiding the responsability for consumer security T80 participates in public health control  Reducing costly widespread diseases The market of T65 bread works well  Maintaining sells T65 involves complex fractionation steps by millers  Preserving the profession’s technicity

  18. Unified approach

  19. Example

  20. Example

  21. Conclusion • A simplified example of a complex situation • Different possible modes of decision • Interest of the approach: theory, applications and stakes • Sensitive point: dependant on the quality of arguments identification

  22. Perspectives • Decision with several viewpoints in the unified approach • A lot to do to facilitate visual representation and analysis • Towards a implemented tool

More Related