Dealing with the dynamics of proof-standard in argumentation-based decision aiding
نویسندگان
چکیده
Usually, in argumentation, the proof-standards that are used are fixed a priori by the procedure. However (multicriteria) decision-aiding is a context where it may be modified dynamically during the process, depending on the responses of the decisionmaker. The expert indeed needs to adapt and refine its choice of an appropriate method of aggregating arguments pros and cons, so that it fits the preference model inferred from the interaction. In this short paper we introduce how this aspect can be handled in an argumentation-based decision-aiding framework. The first contribution of the paper is conceptual: the notion of a concept lattice based on simple properties and allowing to navigate among the different proof-standards is put forward. We then show how this can be integrated within the Carneades model.
منابع مشابه
Towards Automating Decision Aiding Through Argumentation
Decision aiding can be abstractly described as the process of assisting a user/client/decision maker by recommending possible courses of his action. This process has to be able to cope with incomplete and/or inconsistent information and must adapt to the dynamics of the environment in which it is carried out. Indeed, on the one hand, complete information about the environment is almost impossib...
متن کاملChapter 1 ARGUMENTATION THEORY AND DECISION AIDING
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the existent and potential contribution of argumentation theory to decision-aiding, more specifically to multi-criteria decision-aiding. On the one hand, Decision aiding provides a general framework that can be adapted to different contexts of decision-making and a formal theory about preferences. On the other hand Argumentation theory is growing field ...
متن کاملA neural cognitive model of argumentation with application to legal inference and decision making
Formal models of argumentation have been investigated in several areas, from multi-agent systems and artificial intelligence (AI) to decision making, philosophy and law. In artificial intelligence, logic-based models have been the standard for the representation of argumentative reasoning. More recently, the standard logicbased models have been shown equivalent to standard connectionist models....
متن کاملA Simulation Based of Setting Policy in Project Acceptance Based on Experiences in Project-Driven SME's
The acceptance of the right project which leads to the realization of the set objectives is one of the most important issues in project-oriented companies. Therefore, corporate managers prefer to work on those projects which ensures the achievement of goals such as increasing financial profits or being the top brands in their rivals market. The present research aimed at introducing a systemat...
متن کاملArgPROLEG: A Normative Framework for the JUF Theory
In this paper we propose, ArgPROLEG, a normative framework for legal reasoning based on PROLEG, an implementation of the the Japanese “theory of presupposed ultimate facts” (JUF). This theory was mainly developed with the purpose of modelling the process of decision making by judges in the court. Not having complete and accurate information about each case, makes uncertainty an unavoidable part...
متن کامل