Abstract
There has recently been many proposals to adopt an argumentative approach to decision-making. As the underlying assumptions made in these different approaches are not always clearly stated, we review these works, taking a more classical decision theory perspective, more precisely a multicriteria perspective. It appears that these approaches seem to have much to offer to decision models, because they allow a great expressivity in the specification of agents’ preferences, because they naturally cater for partial specification of preferences, and because they make explicit many aspects that are usually somewhat hidden in decision models. On the other hand, the typically intrinsic evaluation used in these approaches is not always the most appropriate, and it is not always clear how the multicriteria feature is taken into account when it comes to aggregating several arguments that may potentially interact.
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
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Modgil, S.: Argumentation for decision support. In: Proc. of the 17th International Conf. on Database and Expert Systems Applications, pp. 822–831 (2006)
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)
Bana a Costa, C.: Les problématiques de l’aide á la décision: vers l’enrichissement de la trilogie choix-tri-rangement. Recherche Operationnelle 30(2), 191–216 (1996)
Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Explaining qualitative decision under uncertainty by argumentation. In: Proc. of the 21st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2006)
Atkinson, K.: What Should We Do?: Computational Representation of Persuasive argument in practical reasoning. PhD thesis (2005)
Atkinson, K.: Value-based argumentation for democratic support. In: Proc. of the 1st International Conf. on Computational Models of Natural Argument, pp. 47–58. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Value-based argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. of 9th International Workshop on Non Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 443–454 (2002)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Prakken, H.: Justifying Actions by Accruing Arguments. In: Proc. of the 1st International Conf. on Computational Models of Argument, pp. 247–258. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
Bonnefon, J.-F., Fargier, H.: Comparing sets of positive and negative arguments: Empirical assessment of seven qualitative rules. In: Proc. of 17th European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
Bonet, B., Geffner, H.: Arguing for Decisions: A Qualitative Model of Decision Making. In: Proc. of the 12th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 98–105 (1996)
Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., Pirlot, M., Perny, P., Tsoukiás, A., Vincke, P.: Evaluation and decision models: a critical perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)
Belton, V., Stewart, T.: Muliple Criteria Decision Analysis: an Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Graduality in argumentation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 23, 245–297 (2005)
Dubois, D., Fargier, H.: On the qualitative comparison of sets of positive and negative affects. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 305–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Dung, P.M.: On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–358 (1995)
Fox, J., Barber, D., Bardhan, K.D.: Alternatives to bayes? A quantitative comparison with rule-based diagnostic inference. Methods of Information in Medicine 19(4), 210–215 (1980)
Fox, J., Parsons, S.: On Using Arguments for Reasoning about Actions and Values. In: Proc. of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Qualitative Preferences in Deliberation and Practical Reasoning, pp. 55–63. AAAI Press, Stanford (1997)
Fox, J., Parsons, S.: Arguing about beliefs and actions. In: Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, pp. 266–302 (1998)
Karacapilidis, N.I., Papadias, D.: Hermes: Supporting argumentative discourse in multi-agent decision making. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp. 827–832 (1998)
Morge, M., Mancarella, P.: The hedgehog and the fox. an argumentation-based decision support system. In: Proc. of the 4th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (2007)
Modgil, S.: Value based argumentation in hierarchical argumentation. In: Proc. of the 1st International Conf. on Computational Models of Natural Argument (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ouerdane, W., Maudet, N., Tsoukias, A. (2007). Arguing over Actions That Involve Multiple Criteria: A Critical Review. In: Mellouli, K. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4724. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75256-1_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75256-1_29
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-75255-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-75256-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)