Explaining Qualitative Decision under Uncertainty by Argumentation

Decision making under uncertainty is usually based on the comparative evaluation of different alternatives by means of a decision criterion. In a qualitative setting, pessimistic and optimistic criteria have been proposed. In that setting, the whole decision process is compacted into a criterion formula on the basis of which alternatives are compared. It is thus impossible for an end user to understand why an alternative is good, or better than another. Besides, argumentation is a powerful tool for explaining inferences, decisions, etc. This paper articulates optimistic and pessimistic decision criteria in terms of an argumentation process that consists of constructing arguments in favor/against decisions, evaluating the strengths of those arguments, and comparing pairs of alternatives on the basis of their supporting/attacking arguments.

[1]  Henri Prade,et al.  On the Possibilistic Deceision Model: From Decesion under Uncertainty to Case-Based Decesion , 1999, Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst..

[2]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Preferential Models and Cumulative Logics , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Decision-theoretic foundations of qualitative possibility theory , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[4]  Phan Hong Giang,et al.  Two axiomatic approaches to decision making using possibility theory , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[5]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Using Possibilistic Logic for Modeling Qualitative Decision: ATMS-based Algorithms , 1999, Fundam. Informaticae.

[6]  Hélène Fargier,et al.  Qualitative Decision under Uncertainty: Back to Expected Utility , 2003, IJCAI.

[7]  Michel Grabisch,et al.  Relating decision under uncertainty and multicriteria decision making models , 2000, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[8]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities , 1997, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

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

[11]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Qualitative Decision Theory , 1994, AAAI.

[12]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Automated Reasoning Using Possibilistic Logic: Semantics, Belief Revision, and Variable Certainty Weights , 1994, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[13]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Representing Default Rules in Possibilistic Logic , 1992, KR.

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

[15]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks , 2002, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[16]  Henri Prade,et al.  Using Arguments for Making Decisions: A Possibilistic Logic Approach , 2004, UAI.