Decision Making with Assumption-Based Argumentation

  • Xiuyi Fan
  • Francesca Toni
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8306)


In this paper, we present two different formal frameworks for representing decision making. In both frameworks, decisions have multiple attributes and meet different goals. In the second framework, decisions take into account preferences over goals. We also study a family of decision functions representing making decisions with different criteria, including decisions meeting all goals, most goals, goals no other decisions meet, and most preferred achievable goals. For each decision function, we define an argumentation-based computational mechanism for computing and explaining the selected decisions. We make connections between decision making and argumentation semantics, i.e., selected decisions in a decision making framework are admissible arguments in the corresponding argumentation framework. The main advantage of our approach is that it not only selects decisions but also gives an argumentation-based justification of selected decisions.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Art. Int. 173(3-4) (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Black, E., Atkinson, K.: Choosing persuasive arguments for action. In: The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Argumentation in AI, pp. 25–44. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M., Toni, F.: Towards argumentation-based contract negotiation. In: Proc. COMMA (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. AIJ 170, 114–159 (2006)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fan, X., Craven, R., Singer, R., Toni, F., Williams, M.: Assumption-based argumentation for decision-making with preferences: A medical case study. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds.) CLIMA XIV 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8143, pp. 374–390. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fox, J., Glasspool, D., Patkar, V., Austin, M., Black, L., South, M., Robertson, D., Vincent, C.: Delivering clinical dec. support services: There is nothing as practical as a good theory. J. of Biom. Inf. 43(5) (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fox, J., Krause, P., Elvang-Gøransson, M.: Argumentation as a general framework for uncertain reasoning. In: Proc. UAI, pp. 428–434 (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matt, P.-A., Toni, F., Vaccari, J.R.: Dominant decisions by argumentation agents. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6057, pp. 42–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nawwab, F.S., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: A methodology for action-selection using value-based argumentation. In: Proc. COMMA, pp. 264–275 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiuyi Fan
    • 1
  • Francesca Toni
    • 1
  1. 1.Imperial College LondonLondonUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations