Argumentation-Based Qualitative Preference Modelling with Incomplete and Uncertain Information
نویسندگان
چکیده
This paper presents an argumentation-based framework for the modelling of, and automated reasoning about multi-attribute preferences of a qualitative nature. The framework presents preferences according to the lexicographic ordering that is well-understood by humans. Preferences are derived in part from knowledge. Knowledge, however, may be incomplete or uncertain. The main contribution of the paper is that it shows how to reason about preferences when only incomplete or uncertain information is available. We propose a strategy that allows reasoning with incomplete information and discuss a number of strategies to handle uncertain information. It is shown how to extend the basic framework for modelling preferences to incorporate these strategies.
منابع مشابه
Argumentation-Based Preference Modelling with Incomplete Information
No intelligent decision support system functions even remotely without knowing the preferences of the user. A major problem is that the way average users think about and formulate their preferences does not match the utility-based quantitative frameworks currently used in decision support systems. For the average user qualitative models are a better fit. This paper presents an argumentationbase...
متن کاملAn Argumentation Framework for Qualitative Multi-criteria Preferences
Preferences between different alternatives (products, decisions, agreements etc.) are often based on multiple criteria. Qualitative Preference Systems (QPS) is a formal framework for the representation of qualitative multi-criteria preferences in which a criterion’s preference is defined based on the values of attributes or by combining multiple subcriteria in a cardinality-based or lexicograph...
متن کاملArgumentation with Abduction
This paper presents a general approach to combining argumentation and abduction where the different uses of argumentation for preference reasoning and abduction for reasoning under incomplete information are synthesized together in an enhancing way. This integrated approach of argumentation and abduction can form the basis for encoding adaptable preference policies in the face of incomplete inf...
متن کاملHermes: Supporting Argumentative Discourse in Multi-Agent Decision Making
This paper describes HERMES, a system that enhances group decision making by providing an argumentation framework to the agents involved. The system organizes the existing knowledge in a discussion graph, which consists of issues, alternatives, positions and preference relations. Argumentation is performed through a set of discourse acts which trigger appropriate procedures for the propagation ...
متن کاملComprehensive Decision Modeling of Reverse Logistics System: A Multi-criteria Decision Making Model by using Hybrid Evidential Reasoning Approach and TOPSIS (TECHNICAL NOTE)
In the last two decades, product recovery systems have received increasing attention due to several reasons such as new governmental regulations and economic advantages. One of the most important activities of these systems is to assign returned products to suitable reverse manufacturing alternatives. Uncertainty of returned products in terms of quantity, quality, and time complicates the decis...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2011