Decision Making and Quality-of-Information

  • Paulo Novais
  • Maria Salazar
  • Jorge Ribeiro
  • Cesar Analide
  • José Neves
Part of the Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 73)


In Group Decision Making based on argumentation, decisions are made considering the diverse points of view of the different partakers in order to decide which course of action a group should follow. However, knowledge and belief are normally incomplete, contradictory, or error sensitive, being desirable to use formal tools to deal with the problems that arise from the use of uncertain and even not precise information. On the other hand, qualitative models and qualitative reasoning have been around in Artificial Intelligence research for some time, in particular due the growing need to offer support in decision-making processes, a problem that in this work will be addressed in terms of an extension to the logic programming language and based on an evaluation of the Quality-of-Information (QoI) that stems out from those extended logic programs or theories. We present a computational model to address the problem of decision making, in terms of a multitude of scenarios, also defined as logic programs or theories, where the more appropriate ones stand for the higher QoIs values.


Logic Program Group Decision Logic Programming Formal Tool Qualitative Reasoning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kowalski, R.: The logical way to be artificially intelligent. In: Toni, F., Torroni, O. (eds.) Proceedings of the CLIMA VI. LNCS (LNAI), pp. 1–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sheridan, F.: A Survey of techniques for inference under uncertainty. Artificial Intelligent Review 5(1), 89 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ginsberg, M.L.: Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Los Altos, Califórnia, EUA. Morgan Kauffman Publishers, Inc., San Francisco (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neves, J.: A Logic Interpreter to Handle Time and Negation in Logic Data Bases. In: Proceedings of ACM 1984, The Fifth Generation Challenge, pp. 50–54 (1984)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Subrahmanian, V.: Probabilistic databases and logic programming. In: Proc. of the 17th International Conference of Logic Programming (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kakas, A., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: The role of abduction in logic programming. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming 5, 235–324 (1998)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hommersom, A., Lucas, P.J.F., van Bommel, P.: Checking the quality of clinical guidelines using automated reasoning tools. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 8(5-6), 611–641 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lima, L., Novais, P., Bulas Cruz, J.: A Process Model For Group Decision Making With Quality Evaluation. In: Omatu, S., Rocha, M.P., Bravo, J., Fernández, F., Corchado, E., Bustillo, A., Corchado, J.M. (eds.) IWANN 2009. LNCS, vol. 5518, pp. 566–573. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Novais, P., Costa, R., Carneiro, D., Machado, J., Lima, L., Neves, J.: Group Support in Collaborative Networks Organizations for Ambient Assisted Living. In: Oya, M., Uda, R., Yasunobu, C. (eds.) Towards Sustainable Society on Ubiquitous Networks. IFIP, pp. 353–362. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Analide, C., Novais, P., Machado, M., Neves, J.: Quality of Knowledge in Virtual Entities. In: Encyclopedia of Communities of Practice in Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 436–442. Idea Group Inc., USA (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lu, J., Zhang, G., Ruan, D., Wu, F.: Multi-objective Group Decision Making: Methods, Software and Applications with Fuzzy Set Techniques. Electric and Computer Engineering. Imperial College Press,Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Simon, H.A.: Models of Bounded Rationality: Empirically Grounded Economic Reason, vol. 3. MIT Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nappelbaum, E.: Systems logic for problem formulation and choice. In: Humphreys, P., et al. (eds.) IFIP TC8 WG8.3, Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones, G., Humphreys, P.: The Decision Hedgehog: Enhancing Contextual Knowledge for Group Decision Authoring and Communication Support. In: Fifth International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context, CEUR-WS, Paris, France (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Machado, J., Abelha, A., Novais, P., Neves, J., Neves, J.: Quality of service in healthcare units. Int. J. Computer Aided Engineering and Technology 2(4), 436–449 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo Novais
    • 1
  • Maria Salazar
    • 2
  • Jorge Ribeiro
    • 3
  • Cesar Analide
    • 1
  • José Neves
    • 1
  1. 1.CCTC, Department of InformaticsUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal
  2. 2.Centro Hospitalar do Porto, EPEPortoPortugal
  3. 3.School of Technology and ManagementViana do Castelo Polytechnic InstituteViana do CasteloPortugal

Personalised recommendations