Conference Paper

An Argumentation-Based Approach to Multiple Criteria Decision.

DOI: 10.1007/11518655_24 Conference: Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 8th European Conference, ECSQARU 2005, Barcelona, Spain, July 6-8, 2005, Proceedings
Source: DBLP

ABSTRACT The paper presents a first tentative work that investigates the interest and the questions raised by the introduction of argumenta- tion capabilities in multiple criteria decision-making. Emphasizing the positive and the negative aspects of possible choices, by means of ar- guments in favor or against them is valuable to the user of a decision- support system. In agreement with the symbolic character of arguments, the proposed approach remains qualitative in nature and uses a bipolar scale for the assessment of criteria. The paper formalises a multicriteria decision problem within a logical argumentation system. An illustrative example is provided. Various decision principles are considered, whose psychological validity is assessed by an experimental study.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research on reasoning about consequential arguments has been an active but piecemeal enterprise. Previous research considered in depth some subclasses ofconsequential arguments, but further understanding of consequential arguments requires that we address their greater variety, avoiding the risk of over-generalisation from specific examples. Ideally we ought to be able to systematically generate the set of consequential arguments, and then engage in random sampling of stimuli within that set. The current article aims at making steps in that direction, using the theory of utility conditionals as a way to generate a large set of consequential arguments, and offering one study illustrating how the theory can be used for the random sampling of stimuli. Itis expected that further use of this method will bring more diversity to experimental research on consequential arguments, and more robustness to models of argumentation from consequences.
    Thinking and Reasoning 01/2012; 18(3):379-393. · 1.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inferring from inconsistency and making decisions are two problems which have always been treated separately by researchers in Artificial Intelligence. Consequently, different models have been proposed for each category. Different argumentation systems [2, 7, 10, 11] have been developed for handling inconsistency in knowledge bases. Recently, other argumentation systems [3, 4, 8] have been defined for making decisions under uncertainty. The aim of this paper is to present a general argumentation framework in which both inferring from inconsistency and decision making are captured. The proposed framework can be used for decision under uncertainty, multiple criteria decision, rule-based decision and finally case-based decision. Moreover, works on classical decision suppose that the information about environment is coherent, and this no longer required by this general framework.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An important aspect of decision making is that a decision is not made at a time assuming that the decision maker (DM) has all relevant information at hand at the same time. On the contrary making a decision results from a process during which (non) relevant and possibly conflicting information come at different instant. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) is a typical case of a dynamic process. We show in this paper how argumentation can help to represent this dynamics.
    Proceedings of the 12th European conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty; 07/2013