Comparing and Integrating Argumentation-Based with Matrix-Based Decision Support in Arg&Dec

  • Marco Aurisicchio
  • Pietro Baroni
  • Dario Pellegrini
  • Francesca ToniEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9524)


The need of making decisions pervades every field of human activity. Several decision support methods and software tools are available in the literature, relying upon different modelling assumptions and often producing different results. In this paper we investigate the relationships between two such approaches: the recently introduced QuAD frameworks, based on the IBIS model and quantitative argumentation, and the decision matrix method, widely adopted in engineering. In addition, we describe Arg&Dec (standing for Argue & Decide), a prototype web application for collaborative decision-making, encompassing the two methodologies and assisting their comparison through automated transformation.


Argumentation Decision support IBIS Decision matrix 



The authors thank the referees for their helpful comments and Antonio Rago for his help with Arg&Dec in the testing phase. F. Toni was partially supported by the EPSRC TRaDAr project, P. Baroni by the INDAM-GNCS project EMADS.


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artif. Intell. 173(3–4), 413–436 (2009)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aurisicchio, M., Bracewell, R.H.: Capturing an integrated design information space with a diagram based approach. J. Eng. Des. 24, 397–428 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baroni, P., Romano, M., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Bertanza, G.: An argumentation-based approach for automatic evaluation of design debates. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds.) CLIMA XIV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8143, pp. 340–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baroni, P., Romano, M., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Bertanza, G.: Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation. Argument Comput. 6(1), 24–49 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shum, S.J.B., Selvin, A.M., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C.B., Nuseibeh, B.: Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC. In: Dutoit, A.H., McCall, R., Mistrik, I., Paech, B. (eds.) Rationale Management in Software Engineering, pp. 111–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shum, S.J.B.: Cohere: Towards web 2.0 argumentation. In: Besnard, P., Doutre, S., Hunter, A. (eds.) Proceedings of COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 172, pp. 97–108. IOS Press (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shum, S.J.B., Hammond, N.: Argumentation-based design rationale: What use at what cost? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 40(4), 603–652 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 366–377. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Churchman, C.W.: Wicked problems. Manage. Sci. 14(4), B141–B142 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Bonnefon, J.F.: On the qualitative comparison of decisions having positive and negative features. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 32, 385–417 (2008)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Evripidou, V., Toni, F.: Argumentation and voting for an intelligent user empowering business directory on the web. In: Krötzsch, M., Straccia, U. (eds.) RR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7497, pp. 209–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fischer, G., Lemke, A.C., McCall, R., Morch, A.I.: Making argumentation serve design. Hum. Comput. Interact. 6(3), 393–419 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Franklin, B.: Letter to Joseph Priestley. In: Labaree, L.W., Bell, W.J. (eds.) Mr. Franklin: A selection from his personal letters. Yale University Press, New Haven (1956)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klement, E.P., Mesiar, R., Pap, E.: Triangular Norms. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kunz, W., Rittel, H.: Issues as elements of information systems. Working Paper 131, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, California (1970)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Labreuche, C.: A general framework for explaining the results of a multi-attribute preference model. Artif. Intell. 175(7–8), 1410–1448 (2011)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Müller, J., Hunter, A.: An argumentation-based approach for decision making. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 24th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, (ICTAI 2012), pp. 564–571. IEEE Computer Society, 7–9 November 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pugh, S.: Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham (1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M.: Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4(4), 155–169 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rogers, P., Blenko, M.W.: Who has the D? how clear decision roles enhance organizational performance. Harvard Bus. Rev. 84(1), 52–61 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Triantaphyllou, E.: Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A Comparative Study. Kluwer, London (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Triantaphyllou, E., Baig, K.: The impact of aggregating benefit and cost criteria in four MCDA methods. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 52(2), 213–226 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Triantaphyllou, E., Mann, S.H.: An examination of the effectiveness of multi-dimensional decision-making methods: a decision-making paradox. Decis. Support Syst. 5(3), 303–312 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S.D.: Product Design and Development, 3rd edn. Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Aurisicchio
    • 2
  • Pietro Baroni
    • 1
  • Dario Pellegrini
    • 1
  • Francesca Toni
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Università degli Studi di BresciaBresciaItaly
  2. 2.Imperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations