BLA : a new framework for group decision making

In this paper we investigate the problem of admissibility of a candidate under incomplete distributed knowledge. We formalize this admissibility in terms of the goals that will be achieved by selecting this candidate. The knowledge about what feature can lead to achieve what goal, and the importance of each goal are stored in a structure called BLA (Bipolar Leveled set of Arguments). Once the BLA has been established the decision makers are only allowed to utter information about the features that characterize the candidates. The goals that would be achieved by selecting a given candidate will be derived directly from the BLA and the features uttered. This promotes a more transparent decision process since the criteria may not be discussed during the evaluation of actual candidates. Keyword: Decision process, Incomplete Knowledge, Arguments.

[1]  Howard Raiffa,et al.  Decision analysis: introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. 1968. , 1969, M.D.Computing.

[2]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming , 1993, IJCAI.

[3]  Paul J. Krause,et al.  Acceptability of arguments as 'logical uncertainty' , 1993, ECSQARU.

[4]  H. Prade,et al.  Possibilistic logic , 1994 .

[5]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. , 1994 .

[6]  Morten Elvang-Gøransson,et al.  Argumentative Logics: Reasoning with Classically Inconsistent Information , 1995, Data Knowl. Eng..

[7]  D. Walton.  Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning , 1995 .

[8]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Possibility Theory as a Basis for Qualitative Decision Theory , 1995, IJCAI.

[9]  Nancy E. Reed,et al.  Practical Reasoning , 1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[10]  Blai Bonet,et al.  Arguing for Decisions: A Qualitative Model of Decision Making , 1996, UAI.

[11]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Possibility Theory: Qualitative and Quantitative Aspects , 1998 .

[12]  Ana Gabriela Maguitman,et al.  Logical models of argument , 2000, CSUR.

[13]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Reasoning about rational agents , 2000, Intelligent robots and autonomous agents.

[14]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  A logic-based theory of deductive arguments , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[15]  N. Iyadrahwa,et al.  Argumentation-based negotiation , 2004 .

[16]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Qualitative Decision Making with Bipolar Information , 2006, KR.

[17]  J. Fox,et al.  On using arguments for reasoning about actions and values , 2007 .

[18]  Didier Dubois,et al.  On the Qualitative Comparison of Decisions Having Positive and Negative Features , 2008, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[19]  Henri Prade,et al.  Comparing decisions on the basis of a bipolar typology of arguments , 2008 .

[20]  D. Dubois,et al.  An overview of bipolar qualitative decision rules , 2008 .

[21]  Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex,et al.  A Constrained Argumentation System for Practical Reasoning , 2008, ArgMAS.

[22]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Qualitative Heuristics For Balancing the Pros and Cons , 2008 .

[23]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Using enthymemes in an inquiry dialogue system , 2008, AAMAS.

[24]  Henri Prade,et al.  Using arguments for making and explaining decisions , 2009, Artif. Intell..

[25]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Qualitative Bipolar Decision Rules: Toward More Expressive Settings , 2010, Preferences and Decisions.

[26]  Pavlos Moraitis,et al.  Towards Automating Decision Aiding Through Argumentation , 2011 .

[27]  Florence Bannay,et al.  Handling Enthymemes in Time-Limited Persuasion Dialogs , 2011, SUM.

[28]  Elizabeth Black,et al.  Choosing persuasive arguments for action , 2011, AAMAS.

[29]  Ayeley P. Tchangani,et al.  Evaluation Model in Decision Analysis: Bipolar Approach , 2012, Informatica.

[30]  Srdjan Vesic,et al.  On the Use of Argumentation for Multiple Criteria Decision Making , 2012, IPMU.

[31]  Srdjan Vesic,et al.  A formal analysis of the role of argumentation in negotiation dialogues , 2012, J. Log. Comput..

[32]  Romain Guillaume,et al.  Towards a Transparent Deliberation Protocol Inspired from Supply Chain Collaborative Planning , 2014, IPMU.