An Argumentation Framework for Deriving Qualitative Risk Sensitive Preferences
نویسندگان
چکیده
Preferences are derived in part from knowledge. Knowledge, however, may be defeasible. We present an argumentation framework for deriving qualitative, multi-attribute preferences and incorporate defeasible reasoning about knowledge. Intuitively, preferences based on defeasible conclusions are not as strong as preferences based on certain conclusions, since defeasible conclusions may turn out not to hold. This introduces risk when such knowledge is used in practical reasoning. Typically, a risk prone attitude will result in different preferences than a risk averse attitude. In this paper we introduce qualitative strategies for deriving risk sensitive preferences.
منابع مشابه
An 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-Based Qualitative Preference Modelling with Incomplete and Uncertain Information
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 ...
متن کاملReasoning about Interest-Based Preferences
In decision making, negotiation, and other kinds of practical reasoning, it is necessary to model preferences over possible outcomes. Such preferences usually depend on multiple criteria. We argue that the criteria by which outcomes are evaluated should be the satisfaction of a person’s underlying interests: the more an outcome satisfies his interests, the more preferred it is. Underlying inter...
متن کاملInterest-based Preference Reasoning
In the context of practical reasoning, such as decision making and negotiation, it is necessary to model preferences over possible outcomes. Such preferences usually depend on multiple criteria. We argue that the criteria by which outcomes are evaluated should be the satisfaction of a person’s underlying interests: the more an outcome satisfies his interests, the more preferred it is. Underlyin...
متن کاملA Persuasive Dialogue Game for Coalition Formation
In this paper, I propose a formal dialogue framework that enables autonomous agents to engage in a process of practical reasoning, in which they can propose to form coalitions that perform joint actions, using argumentation. An argumentation scheme is used to drive this coalition formation process that results in qualitative payoffs. This paper builds on existing work that uses value-based argu...
متن کامل