On Modeling Multi-experts Multi-criteria Decision-Making Argumentation and Disagreement: Philosophical and Computational Approaches Reconsidered

Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 100)


In this article we suggest that the research area of epistemology of disagreement should be critically applied to the problem of describing multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making (ME-MCDM), while providing an epistemic conceptualization of experts as epistemic peers. We explore some preliminary outcomes of using Dung’s computational framework for argumentation in ME-MCDM with conceptual considerations on the role of formal constraints and rationality approaches for epistemic peer disagreement, such as provided by David Christensen [2], inclusive of epistemic and pragmatic rationality, synchronic and diachronic rationality, and global and local aspects thereof.



This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation, NSF CCF grant 0953339 and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS MIRC (agreement date 112612).


  1. 1.
    Bistarelli, S., Santini, F.: A common computational framework for semiring- based argumentation systems. Font. Artif. Intell. Appl.: ECAI 2010 215(131-136) (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Christensen, D.: Putting Logic in its Place: Formal Constraints to Rational Belief. Oxford University Press (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christensen, D., Lackey, J. (eds.): The Epistemology Of Disagreement: New essays. Oxford University Press (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmono- tonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garbayo, L.: Epistemic considerations on expert disagreement, normative justification and inconsistency regarding multi-criteria decision-making. In Ceberio, M., Krenovich, V.: (eds.), Constraint Programming and Decision MakingStudies in Computational Intelligence Vol. 539, pp. 35-45(2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Henderson, J., Bistarelli, S., Ceberio, M.: Multi-Experts Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Presented at the international conference on numerical computations: theory and algorithms, NUMTA 2013Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rami, B.: An overview of methods to elicit and model expert clinical judgment and decision making. Soc. Serv. Rev. 66(4), 596–616 (1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang, X., Garcia Contreras, A. F., Ceberio, M., Del Hoyo, C., Gutierrez, L. C., Virani, S.: Interval-based algorithms to extract fuzzy measures for software quality assessment. In: North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS’2012), Berkeley, CA, August 2012Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yager, R.: Non-Numeric Multi-Criteria Multi-Person Decision-Making. Group Decis. Negot. 2, 81–93 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA
  2. 2.University of PerugiaPerugiaItaly

Personalised recommendations