Abstract
Group decision making processes are usually characterized by multiple goals and conflicting arguments, brought up by decision makers with different backgrounds and interests. This paper describes a computational model of negotiation and argumentation, by which participants can express their claims and judgements, aiming at informing or convincing. The model is able to handle inconsistent, qualitative and incomplete information in cases where one has to weigh multiple criteria for and against the selection of a certain course of action. It is implemented in Java, the aim being to deploy it on the World Wide Web. The basic objects in our terminology are positions, issues, arguments pro and con, and preference relations. The paper describes procedures for consistency checking, preference aggregation and conclusion of issues under discussion. The proposed model combines concepts from various well-established areas, such as Multiple Criteria Decision Making, nonmonotonic reasoning and cognitive science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H. 1995. How to infer from inconsistent beliefs without revising? In Proceedings of the 14th IJCAI, 1449–1455.
Brewka, G. 1989. Preferred Subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In Proceedings of the 11th IJCAI, 1043–1048.
Brewka, G. 1994a. Reasoning about Priorities in Default Logic. In Proceedings of the 12th AAAI, 940–945.
Brewka, G. 1994b. A Reconstruction of Reseller’s Theory of Formal Disputation Based on Default Logic. In Working Notes of the 12th AAAI Workshop on Computational Dialectics, 15–27.
Cayrol, C. 1995. On the Relation between Argumentation and Non-monotonic Coherence-Based Entailment. In Proceedings of the 14th IJCAI, 1443–1448.
Conklin E.J. 1992. Capturing Organizational Memory. In D. Coleman (ed.) Groupware ’92,133–137.
Doyle, J. 1979. A Truth Maintenance System. Artificial Intelligence 12(3):231–272.
Dung, P.M. 1993. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming. In Proceedings of the 13th IJCAI, 852–857.
Eemeren, F.H. van and Grootendorst, R. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Elvang-Goransson, M., Fox, J., Krause P. 1993. Acceptability of arguments as “logical uncertainty”. In LNCS 747, 85–90. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Farley, A.M., Freeman, K. 1995. Burden of Proof in Legal Argumentation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on AI & Law, 156–164.
Geffner, H., Pearl, J. 1992. Conditional Entailment: Bridging two Approaches to Default Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 53(2–3):209–244.
Gordon, T. 1996. Computational Dialectics. In P. Hoschka (ed.), Computers as Assistants — A New Generation of Support Systems, 186–203. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gordon, T. 1993. The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Ph.D. diss., Fachbereich Informatik, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt.
Hurwitz, R., Mallery, J.C. 1995. The Open Meeting: A Web-Based System for Conferencing and Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 4th International WWW Conference.
Karacapilidis, N.I. 1995. Planning under Uncertainty: A Qualitative Approach. In C. Pinto-Ferreira and N.J. Mamede (eds.), Progress in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 990, 285–296. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Karacapilidis, N.I., Pappis, C.P. 1997. A framework for group decision support systems: Combining AI tools and OR techniques. European Journal of Operational Research 103: 373–388.
Kersten, G.E. 1985. NEGO-group decision support system. Information and Management 8: 237–246.
Kersten, G.E., Szapiro, T. 1986. Generalized approach to modeling negotiations. European Journal of Operational Research 26: 124–142.
Kunz, W., Rittel, H.W.J. 1970. Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Working Paper 0131, Institut fuer Grundlagen der Plannung, Universitaet Stuttgart.
Mackworth, A., Freuder, E. 1985. The Complexity of some Polynomial Network Consistency Algorithms for Constraint Satisfaction Problems”, Artificial Intelligence 25:65–74.
Pollock, J. 1988. Defeasible Reasoning. Cognitive Science 11:481–518.
Prakken, H. 1995. From Logic to Dialectics in Legal Argument. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on AI and Law, 165–174.
Prakken, H. 1993. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Ph.D. diss., Free University of Amsterdam.
Reiter, R. 1980. A Logic for Default Reasoning.Artificial Intelligence 13:81–132.
Rescher, N. 1977. Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M. 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4:155–169.
Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P. 1992. A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53(2–3):125–157.
Sycara, K. 1987. Resolving Adversarial Conflicts: An Approach Integrating Case-Based and Analytic Methods. Ph.D. diss., School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
Yakemovic, K.C.B., Conklin, E.J. 1990. Report on a Development Project Use of an Issue-Based Information System. In Proceedings of CSCW 90,105–118.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Karacapilidis, N.I., Papadias, D., Pappis, C.P. (1998). Modeling Negotiations in Group Decision Support Systems. In: Stewart, T.J., van den Honert, R.C. (eds) Trends in Multicriteria Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 465. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45772-2_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45772-2_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-64741-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-45772-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive