Conference Paper

An Argumentation-Based Approach to Multiple Criteria Decision

University of Toulouse, Tolosa de Llenguadoc, Midi-Pyrénées, France
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.

Full-text preview

Available from: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
    • "Other representations of the preferences could be included in these models and other semantics could be used to compute acceptable subsets of arguments. More complex argumentation schemes such as those for practical reasoning (Atkinson et al. 2006) could be used, as well as other relations between the arguments, namely a support relation (Amgoud et al. 2007). Furthermore, tools should be developed to support participants involved in participatory decision-making processes to help them draft, in a structured manner, the documents they wish to present. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In many countries, development projects that may have a substantial impact on the environment are submitted to a public evaluation process within which citizens use argumentation to express and justify their positions regarding a project. These justifications typically refer to various values. Subsequently, a public commission in charge of the evaluation process arrives at a conclusion. But how are the arguments of the various participants taken into account? How do values influence the commission’s recommendation? In order to arrive to an understanding of a commission’s decision process, we focus on the argumentative nature of the process and apply a methodology combining content analysis and a value-based argumentative framework. This methodology was illustrated using a case study of a hydroelectric project in Québec. First, we analysed a corpus of unstructured texts produced during public hearings and extracted the arguments and values of the participants. We then used a computational model to obtain the commission’s possible hypothetical decisions which we compared with the commission’s actual conclusion. Furthermore, we identified some preference elements of the commission, and we partially explained their attitude towards conflicting and incoherent arguments. Finally, based on our experience, we formulated some conclusions regarding the ability and promise of argumentative methods to support decision making in a participatory context.
    No preview · Article · Jan 2015 · Annals of Operations Research
    • "In the literature of argumentative systems, several approaches use a fixed comparison criterion embedded in the system and in others the criterion can be replaced in a modular way. In [2] [12] [8], the authors also focused their works in multiple criteria, however, in a different manner to the way is proposed in this paper. The main contribution of this paper is to provide a framework where several comparison criteria can be selected and combined for deciding which argument prevails. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Argumentation is an attractive reasoning mechanism due to its dialectical and non monotonic nature, and its properties of computational tractability. In dynamic domains where the agents deal with incomplete and contradictory information, to determine the accepted or warranted information, an argument comparison criterion must be used. Argumentation systems that use a single argument comparison criterion have been widely studied in the literature. In some of these approaches, the comparison is fixed and in others the criterion can be replaced in a modular way. In this work we introduce an argumentative server that provides recommendations to its client agents and the ability to decide how multiple argument comparison criteria can be combined. In the proposed formalism, the argumentative reasoning is based on the criteria selected by the client agents. As a result, a set of operators to combine multiple preference criteria is presented.
    No preview · Article · Jan 2014
  • Source
    • "no contradiction, no negotiation) argumentative discourses, designed to help a user to reach a goal, making the best decisions (see e.g. [3], [4]). This type of discourse contains a number of facets, which are all associated in a way to argumentation. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Instructional texts consist of sequences of instruc-tions designed in order to reach an objective. The author or the generator of instructional texts must follow a number of principles to guarantee that the text is of any use. Similarly, a user must follow step by step the instructions in order to reach the results expected. In this paper, we explore facets of instructional texts: general prototypical structures, rhetorical structure and natural argumentation. Our study is based on an extensive corpus study with the aim of generating such texts.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2012
Show more