Discontinuity-Free Decision Support with Quantitative Argumentation Debates

IBIS (Issue Based Information System) provides a widely adopted approach for knowledge representation especially suitable for the challenging task of representing wicked decision problems. While many tools for visualisation and collaborative development of IBIS graphs are available, automated decision support in this context is still underdeveloped, even though it would benefit several applications. QuAD (Quantitative Argumentation Debate) frameworks are a recently proposed IBIS-based formalism encompassing automated decision support by means of an algorithm for quantifying the strength of alternative decision options, based on aggregation of the strength of their attacking and supporting arguments. The initially proposed aggregation method, however, may give rise to discontinuities. In this paper we propose a novel, discontinuity-free algorithm for computing the strength of decision options in QuAD frameworks. We prove that this algorithm features several desirable properties and we compare the two aggregation methods, showing that both may be appropriate in the context of different application scenarios.

[1]  B. Head,et al.  Wicked Problems , 2015 .

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

[3]  Ringo Baumann,et al.  AGM Meets Abstract Argumentation: Expansion and Revision for Dung Frameworks , 2015, IJCAI.

[4]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On the Revision of Argumentation Systems: Minimal Change of Arguments Statuses , 2014, KR.

[5]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Enforcement in Argumentation Is a Kind of Update , 2013, SUM.

[6]  Rob H. Bracewell,et al.  Capturing an integrated design information space with a diagram-based approach , 2013 .

[7]  Gernot Richter,et al.  Discourse Support Systems for Deliberative Democracy , 2002, EGOV.

[8]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Henry Prakken,et al.  The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Dimitris Papadias,et al.  Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system , 2001, Inf. Syst..

[11]  João Leite,et al.  Social Abstract Argumentation , 2011, IJCAI.

[12]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Comparing and Integrating Argumentation-Based with Matrix-Based Decision Support in Arg&Dec , 2015, TAFA.

[13]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation , 2015, Argument Comput..

[14]  Rob H. Bracewell,et al.  A TOOL FOR CAPTURING DESIGN RATIONALE , 2003 .

[15]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Proof Burdens and Standards , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[16]  John P. Davis,et al.  An argumentation-based method for managing complex issues in design of infrastructural systems , 2006, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[17]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks , 2008, NMR.

[18]  Katie Atkinson,et al.  Using Computational Argumentation to Support E-participation , 2009, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[19]  Maarten Sierhuis,et al.  Facilitated hypertext for collective sensemaking: 15 years on from gIBIS , 2001, Hypertext.

[20]  Kuntz Werner,et al.  Issues as Elements of Information Systems , 1970 .

[21]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Quaestio-it.com: a social intelligent debating platform , 2014, J. Decis. Syst..

[22]  Rob H. Bracewell,et al.  Capturing design rationale , 2009, Comput. Aided Des..

[23]  Yang Gao,et al.  An Overview of Argumentation Frameworks for Decision Support , 2015, GKR.

[24]  Euripidis Loukis,et al.  Using Argument Visualization to Enhance e-Participation in the Legislation Formation Process , 2009, ePart.