Towards Automating Decision Aiding Through Argumentation

Ouerdane, Wassila; Dimopoulos, Yannis; Liapis, Konstantinos; Moraïtis, Pavlos

doi:10.1002/mcda.486

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent development in AI has been the advent of several formal argumentation systems that combine argumentation theory with MCDM (Ouerdane et al, 2011;van der Weide, 2011). Here we cite one example of such a system that illustrates how such a combination is possible.…”

Section: Problem Solving and Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dialectical Models of Deliberation, Problem Solving and Decision Making

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hamblin distinguished between formal and descriptive dialectic. Formal normative models of deliberation dialogue have been strongly emphasized as argumentation frameworks in computer science. But making such models of deliberation applicable to real natural language examples has reached a point where the descriptive aspect needs more interdisciplinary work. The new formal and computational models of deliberation dialogue that are being built in computer science seem to be closely related to some already existing and very well established computing technologies such as problem solving and decision making, but whether or how dialectical argumentation can be helpful to support these systems remains an open question. The aim of this paper is to examine some real examples of argumentation that seem to hover on the borderlines between deliberation, problem solving and decision making.

show abstract

Section: Problem Solving and Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dialectical Models of Deliberation, Problem Solving and Decision Making

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As for preventing sets, this shows the responsibility of SCUPs, since it provides a sufficient condition for obtaining a stable labelling. Figure 12, and AF 3 8 and LabArg 3 are as illustrated in Figure 19. Since a SCUP revision has a preferred labelling that is more committed than LabArg pref , each iteration in the iterative SCUP revision reduces the set of arguments labelled undec.…”

Section: Revising Scupsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Argumentation formalisms have been widely studied for representing arguments and conflicts between these arguments, and for evaluating which sets of arguments should be accepted by resolving the conflicts. An important application area of such formalisms is in decision support, where decisions are made based on an exchange of arguments and an evaluation of their acceptability, see for example [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, the exact structural change is not of interest here; instead, the engineering of the revision is left open to fulfil differing requirements of applications and information available to users. We therefore focus on the change of labels from undec to in or out and the fact that enforcing 3 the label through some structural revision makes this label legal (in the structurally revised AF).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the responsibility for undecisiveness in preferred and stable labellings in abstract argumentation

Schulz

Toni

2018

Artificial Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different semantics of abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) provide different levels of decisiveness for reasoning about the acceptability of conflicting arguments. The stable semantics is useful for applications requiring a high level of decisiveness, as it assigns to each argument the label "accepted" or the label "rejected". Unfortunately, stable labellings are not guaranteed to exist, thus raising the question as to which parts of AFs are responsible for the nonexistence. In this paper, we address this question by investigating a more general question concerning preferred labellings (which may be less decisive than stable labellings but are always guaranteed to exist), namely why a given preferred labelling may not be stable and thus undecided on some arguments. In particular, (1) we give various characterisations of parts of an AF, based on the given preferred labelling, and (2) we show that these parts are indeed responsible for the undecisiveness if the preferred labelling is not stable. We then use these characterisations to explain the non-existence of stable labellings. We present two types of characterisations, based on labellings that are more (or equally) committed than the given preferred labelling on the one hand, and based on the structure of the given AF on the other, and compare the respective AF parts deemed responsible. To prove that our characterisations indeed yield responsible parts, we use a notion of enforcement of labels through structural revision, by means of which the preferred labelling of the given AF can be turned into a stable labelling of the structurally revised AF. Rather than prescribing how this structural revision is carried out, we focus on the enforcement of labels and leave the engineering of the revision open to fulfil differing requirements of applications and information available to users.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, an argument against a decision (con) gives the criteria which are insufficiently satisfied. Arguments may have forces of various strengths [22] that enable an agent to compare different arguments in order to select the best ones, and consequently to select the best decisions. In order to support an argument-based comparison of decisions, a principle is required.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation-Based Group Decision Support for Collectivist Communities

Coetzee¹

2014

Advanced Information Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Part 1: Cross-Domain Conference and Workshop on Multidisciplinary Research and Practice for Information Systems (CD-ARES 2014): Knowledge ManagementInternational audienceIn collectivist communities, decisions are taken by groups of people who prefer to consider the opinions of their in-group. For them it is important to reach group consensus by focusing on the group’s preferences and goals. Such decision processes can be supported by multi-criteria decision analysis that identifies sets of objectives, representing subjective values used in decision making, to better generate recommendations. Recently, several attempts have been made to explain and suggest alternatives in decision-making problems by using arguments. Argumentation theory is the process of bringing together arguments so that conclusions can be justified and explained. Each potential decision usually has arguments for or against it, of various strengths. For collectivist communities, the non-monotonicity of argumentation theory is useful as it supports an adaptive decision-making style. The fact that the opinions of group members can be evaluated and replaced, if they are found lacking via a group opinion strategy, fits well with collectivist decision-making. This paper proposes a framework that allows a group of users, belonging to a collectivist and mostly rural community, to share their opinions when making decisions such as buying goods in bulk in order by incorporating their cultural beliefs in the system design

show abstract

Towards Automating Decision Aiding Through Argumentation

Cited by 11 publications

References 45 publications

Dialectical Models of Deliberation, Problem Solving and Decision Making

Dialectical Models of Deliberation, Problem Solving and Decision Making

On the responsibility for undecisiveness in preferred and stable labellings in abstract argumentation

Argumentation-Based Group Decision Support for Collectivist Communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About