Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 55, Issue 3, pp 633–669 | Cite as

Dynamic argumentation in UbiGDSS

  • João Carneiro
  • Diogo Martinho
  • Goreti Marreiros
  • Amparo Jimenez
  • Paulo Novais
Regular Paper


Supporting and representing the group decision-making process is a complex task that requires very specific aspects. The current existing argumentation models cannot make good use of all the advantages inherent to group decision-making. There is no monitoring of the process or the possibility to provide dynamism to it. These issues can compromise the success of group decision support systems if those systems are not able to provide freedom and all necessary mechanisms to the decision-maker. We investigate the use of argumentation in a completely new perspective that will allow for a mutual understanding between agents and decision-makers. Besides this, our proposal allows to define an agent not only according to the preferences of the decision-maker but also according to his interests towards the decision-making process. We show that our definition respects the requirements that are essential for groups to interact without limitations and that can take advantage of those interactions to create valuable knowledge to support more and better.


Argumentation Automatic negotiation Multi-agent systems Group decision support systems Ubiquitous computing 



This paper is a revised and an expanded version of a paper entitle “Introducing Dynamic Argumentation to UbiGDSS” presented at International Conference on Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence 2016, Seville, Spain [10]. This work has been supported by COMPETE Programme (operational programme for competitiveness) within project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007043, by National Funds through the FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) within the Projects UID/CEC/00319/2013, UID/EEA/00760/2013, and the João Carneiro Ph.D. grant with the reference SFRH/BD/89697/2012.


  1. 1.
    Bell DE (1985) Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Oper Res 33(1):1–27MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellifemine F, Poggi A, Rimassa G (1999) JADE—A FIPA-compliant agent framework. In: Proceedings of PAAM, London, vol 99, p 33Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonzon E, Dimopoulos Y, Moraitis P (2012) Knowing each other in argumentation-based negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems-volume 3, international foundation for autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 1413–1414Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Booth R, Caminada M, Podlaszewski M, Rahwan I (2012) Quantifying disagreement in argument-based reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems-vol 1, International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp 493–500Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carneiro J, Santos R, Marreiros G, Novais P (2014) Overcoming the lack of human-interaction in ubiquitous group decision support systems. Adv Sci Technol Lett 49:116–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carneiro J, Martinho D, Marreiros G, Novais P (2015a) Defining agents’ behaviour for negotiation contexts. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–14Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carneiro J, Martinho D, Marreiros G, Novais P (2015b) A general template to configure multi-criteria problems in ubiquitous gdss. Int J Softw Eng Appl 9:193–206. doi: 10.14257/astl.205.97.17 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carneiro J, Santos R, Marreiros G, Novais P (2015d) UbiGDSS: A theoretical model to predict decision-makers’ satisfaction. Int J Multimed Ubiquitous Eng 10:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carneiro J, Martinho D, Marreiros G, Novais P (2015c) Individual definition of multi-criteria problems in ubiquitous gdss. Adv Sci Technol LettGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carneiro J, Martinho D, Marreiros G, Novais P (2016) Introducing dynamic argumentation to UbiGDSS. In: Distributed computing and artificial intelligence, 13th international conference, Springer, Berlin, pp 471–479Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daume S, Robertson D (2000) An architecture for the deployment of mobile decision support systems. Expert Syst Appl 19(4):305–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeSanctis G, Gallupe B (1985) Group decision support systems: a new frontier. SIGMIS Database 16:3–10. doi: 10.1145/1040688.1040689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DeSanctis G, Gallupe B (1987) A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Manag Sci 33:589–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–357MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    El-Sisi AB, Mousa HM (2012) Argumentation based negotiation in multiagent system. In: Computer Engineering and Systems (ICCES), 2012 seventh international conference on, IEEE, pp 261–266Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fan X, Craven R, Singer R, Toni F, Williams M (2013) Assumption-based argumentation for decision-making with preferences: A medical case study. In: International workshop on computational logic in multi-agent systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 374–390Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fan X, Toni F (2013) Decision making with assumption-based argumentation. In: International workshop on theory and applications of formal argumentation. Springer, Berlin, pp 127–142Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fan X, Toni F, Mocanu A, Williams M (2014) Dialogical two-agent decision making with assumption-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, international foundation for autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 533–540Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gordon TF, Karacapilidis N (1997) The Zeno argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 10–18Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grudin J (2002) Group dynamics and ubiquitous computing. Commun ACM 45:74–78. doi: 10.1145/585597.585618 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hackman JR, Morris CG (1974) Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: a review and proposed integration. CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heras S, Atkinson K, Botti VJ, Grasso F, Julián V, McBurney P (2010) How argumentation can enhance dialogues in social networks. COMMA 216:267–274Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heras S, Jordán J, Botti V, Julián V (2013) Argue to agree: a case-based argumentation approach. Int J Approx Reason 54(1):82–108CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hill GW (1982) Group versus individual performance: are \(n+ 1\) heads better than one? Psychol Bull 91(3):517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huber GP (1984) Issues in the design of group decision support systems. MIS Q: Manag Inf Syst 8:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ito T, Shintani T (1997) Persuasion among agents: an approach to implementing a group decision support system based on multi-agent negotiation. Int Joint Conf Artif Intell Citeseer 15:592–599Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karacapilidis N, Papadias D (2001) Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Inf Syst 26(4):259–277CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kraus S, Sycara K, Evenchik A (1998) Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artif Intell 104(1):1–69MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kudenko D, Bauer M, Dengler D (2003) Group decision making through mediated discussions. In: International conference on user modeling. Springer, Berlin, pp 238–247Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kwon O, Yoo K, Suh E (2005) Ubidss: a proactive intelligent decision support system as an expert system deploying ubiquitous computing technologies. Expert Syst Appl 28:149–161. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2004.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lamm H, Trommsdorff G (1973) Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency (brainstorming): a review. Eur J Soc Psychol 3(4):361–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Marey O, Bentahar J, Asl EK, Mbarki M, Dssouli R (2014a) Agents’ uncertainty in argumentation-based negotiation: classification and implementation. Proc Comput Sci 32:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marey O, Bentahar J, Dssouli R, Mbarki M (2014b) Measuring and analyzing agents’ uncertainty in argumentation-based negotiation dialogue games. Expert Syst Appl 41(2):306–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Marey O, Bentahar J, Khosrowshahi-Asl E, Sultan K, Dssouli R (2015) Decision making under subjective uncertainty in argumentation-based agent negotiation. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 6(3):307–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Marreiros G, Santos R, Ramos C, Neves J (2010) Context-aware emotion-based model for group decision making. IEEE Intell Syst 25:31–39. doi: 10.1109/MIS.2010.46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Martinho D, Carneiro J, Marreiros G, Novais P (2015) Dealing with agents’ behaviour in the decision-making process. In: Workshop proceedings of the 11th international conference on intelligent environments, IOS Press, vol 19, p 4Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Müller J, Hunter A (2012) An argumentation-based approach for decision making. In: 2012 IEEE 24th international conference on tools with artificial intelligence, IEEE, vol 1, pp 564–571Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Osborn AF (1963) Applied imagination; principles and procedures of creative problem-solving: principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. ScribnerGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Parsons S, Sklar E, Singh MP, Levitt KN, Rowe J (2013) An argumentation-based approach to handling trust in distributed decision making. In: AAAI spring symposium: trust and autonomous systemsGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Price DD, McGrath PA, Rafii A, Buckingham B (1983) The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain 17(1):45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rahwan I, Simari GR, van Benthem J (2009) Argumentation in artificial intelligence, vol 47. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sánchez-Anguix V, Botti V, Julián V, García-Fornes A (2011) Analyzing intra-team strategies for agent-based negotiation teams. In: The 10th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, vol 53, pp 929–936Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shaw ME (1932) A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of complex problems. Am J Psychol 44(3):491–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sierra C, Jennings NR, Noriega P, Parsons S (1997) A framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: International workshop on agent theories, architectures, and languages. Springer, Berlin, pp 177–192Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sklar EI, Parsons S, Li Z, Salvit J, Perumal S, Wall H, Mangels J (2016) Evaluation of a trust-modulated argumentation-based interactive decision-making tool. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 30(1):136–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Van der Weide TL, Dignum F, Meyer JJC, Prakken H, Vreeswijk G (2011) Multi-criteria argument selection in persuasion dialogues. In: International workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 136–153Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Watson WE, Michaelsen LK, Sharp W (1991) Member competence, group interaction, and group decision making: a longitudinal study. J Appl Psychol 76(6):803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wyner A, Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2012) A functional perspective on argumentation schemes. In: Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2012), pp 203–222Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GECAD - Research Group on Intelligent Engineering and Computing for Advanced Innovation and Development, Institute of EngineeringPolytechnic of PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.ALGORITMI CentreUniversity of MinhoGuimarãesPortugal
  3. 3.Universidad Pontificia de SalamancaSalamancaSpain

Personalised recommendations