An Argumentation Framework for Qualitative Multi-criteria Preferences

  • Wietske Visser
  • Koen V. Hindriks
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7132)

Abstract

Preferences between different alternatives (products, decisions, agreements etc.) are often based on multiple criteria. Qualitative Preference Systems (QPS) is a formal framework for the representation of qualitative multi-criteria preferences in which a criterion’s preference is defined based on the values of attributes or by combining multiple subcriteria in a cardinality-based or lexicographic way. In this paper we present a language and reasoning mechanism to represent and reason about such qualitative multi-criteria preferences. We take an argumentation-based approach and show that the presented argumentation framework correctly models a QPS. Then we extend this argumentation framework in such a way that it can derive missing information from background knowledge, which makes it more flexible in case of incomplete specifications.

Keywords

Inference Rule Simple Criterion Argumentation Framework Logical Language Input Language 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Automated Reasoning 29, 125–169 (2002)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kakas, A., Moraïtis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2003), pp. 883–890 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1(2), 93–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90(1-2), 225–279 (1997)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ouerdane, W., Maudet, N., Tsoukiàs, A.: Argumentation theory and decision aiding. In: Ehrgott, M., Figueira, J.R., Greco, S. (eds.) New Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artificial Intelligence 173(3-4), 413–436 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bonnefon, J.F., Fargier, H.: Comparing sets of positive and negative arguments: Empirical assessment of seven qualitative rules. In: 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2006), pp. 16–20. IOS Press (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Bonnefon, J.F.: On the qualitative comparison of decisions having positive and negative features. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 32, 385–417 (2008)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bench-Capon, T., Atkinson, K.: Abstract argumentation and values. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 45–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Preference-based argumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 48(3), 730–751 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Weide, T.L., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J.C., Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Practical reasoning using values. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6057, pp. 79–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wietske Visser
    • 1
  • Koen V. Hindriks
    • 1
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
  1. 1.Man Machine Interaction GroupDelft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations