Reasoning about Interest-Based Preferences

  • Wietske Visser
  • Koen V. Hindriks
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 271)


In decision making, negotiation, and other kinds of practical reasoning, it is necessary to model preferences over possible outcomes. Such preferences usually depend on multiple criteria. We argue that the criteria by which outcomes are evaluated should be the satisfaction of a person’s underlying interests: the more an outcome satisfies his interests, the more preferred it is. Underlying interests can explain and eliminate conditional preferences. Also, modelling interests will create a better model of human preferences, and can lead to better, more creative deals in negotiation. We present an argumentation framework for reasoning about interest-based preferences. We take a qualitative approach and provide the means to derive both ceteris paribus and lexicographic preferences.


High Salary Argumentation Framework Inference Scheme Conditional Preference Importance Level 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge University Press (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brewka, G.: A rank based description language for qualitative preferences. In: 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), pp. 303–307 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keeney, R.L.: Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Harvard University Press (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rahwan, I., Pasquier, P., Sonenberg, L., Dignum, F.: On the benefits of exploiting underlying goals in argument-based negotiation. In: 22nd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2007), pp. 116–121 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amgoud, L., Bonnefon, J.F., Prade, H.: An Argumentation-Based Approach to Multiple Criteria Decision. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 269–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artificial Intelligence 173(3-4), 413–436 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ouerdane, W., Maudet, N., Tsoukiàs, A.: Argument schemes and critical questions for decision aiding process. In: Besnard, P., Doutre, S., Hunter, A. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 285–296. IOS Press (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    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)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Preference-based argumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 48(3), 730–751 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van der Weide, T., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.J., Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Practical Reasoning using Values: Giving Meaning to Values. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6057, pp. 79–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Von Wright, G.H.: The Logic of Preference: An Essay. Edinburgh University Press (1963)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wellman, M.P., Doyle, J.: Preferential semantics for goals. In: 9th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1991), pp. 698–703 (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boutilier, C., Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H.H., Poole, D.: CP-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 21, 135–191 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90(1-2), 225–279 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prakken, H.: A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In: 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2005), pp. 85–94 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations