Advertisement

Modeling Negotiations in Group Decision Support Systems

  • N. I. Karacapilidis
  • D. Papadias
  • C. P. Pappis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 465)

Abstract

Group decision making processes are usually characterized by multiple goals and conflicting arguments, brought up by decision makers with different backgrounds and interests. This paper describes a computational model of negotiation and argumentation, by which participants can express their claims and judgements, aiming at informing or convincing. The model is able to handle inconsistent, qualitative and incomplete information in cases where one has to weigh multiple criteria for and against the selection of a certain course of action. It is implemented in Java, the aim being to deploy it on the World Wide Web. The basic objects in our terminology are positions, issues, arguments pro and con, and preference relations. The paper describes procedures for consistency checking, preference aggregation and conclusion of issues under discussion. The proposed model combines concepts from various well-established areas, such as Multiple Criteria Decision Making, nonmonotonic reasoning and cognitive science.

Keywords

Group Decision Support Negotiation Argumentation Reasoning. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H. 1995. How to infer from inconsistent beliefs without revising? In Proceedings of the 14th IJCAI, 1449–1455.Google Scholar
  2. Brewka, G. 1989. Preferred Subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In Proceedings of the 11th IJCAI, 1043–1048.Google Scholar
  3. Brewka, G. 1994a. Reasoning about Priorities in Default Logic. In Proceedings of the 12th AAAI, 940–945.Google Scholar
  4. Brewka, G. 1994b. A Reconstruction of Reseller’s Theory of Formal Disputation Based on Default Logic. In Working Notes of the 12th AAAI Workshop on Computational Dialectics, 15–27.Google Scholar
  5. Cayrol, C. 1995. On the Relation between Argumentation and Non-monotonic Coherence-Based Entailment. In Proceedings of the 14th IJCAI, 1443–1448.Google Scholar
  6. Conklin E.J. 1992. Capturing Organizational Memory. In D. Coleman (ed.) Groupware ’92,133–137.Google Scholar
  7. Doyle, J. 1979. A Truth Maintenance System. Artificial Intelligence 12(3):231–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dung, P.M. 1993. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming. In Proceedings of the 13th IJCAI, 852–857.Google Scholar
  9. Eemeren, F.H. van and Grootendorst, R. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Elvang-Goransson, M., Fox, J., Krause P. 1993. Acceptability of arguments as “logical uncertainty”. In LNCS 747, 85–90. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Farley, A.M., Freeman, K. 1995. Burden of Proof in Legal Argumentation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on AI & Law, 156–164.Google Scholar
  12. Geffner, H., Pearl, J. 1992. Conditional Entailment: Bridging two Approaches to Default Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 53(2–3):209–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gordon, T. 1996. Computational Dialectics. In P. Hoschka (ed.), Computers as Assistants — A New Generation of Support Systems, 186–203. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Gordon, T. 1993. The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Ph.D. diss., Fachbereich Informatik, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  15. Hurwitz, R., Mallery, J.C. 1995. The Open Meeting: A Web-Based System for Conferencing and Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 4th International WWW Conference.Google Scholar
  16. Karacapilidis, N.I. 1995. Planning under Uncertainty: A Qualitative Approach. In C. Pinto-Ferreira and N.J. Mamede (eds.), Progress in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 990, 285–296. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karacapilidis, N.I., Pappis, C.P. 1997. A framework for group decision support systems: Combining AI tools and OR techniques. European Journal of Operational Research 103: 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kersten, G.E. 1985. NEGO-group decision support system. Information and Management 8: 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kersten, G.E., Szapiro, T. 1986. Generalized approach to modeling negotiations. European Journal of Operational Research 26: 124–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kunz, W., Rittel, H.W.J. 1970. Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Working Paper 0131, Institut fuer Grundlagen der Plannung, Universitaet Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  21. Mackworth, A., Freuder, E. 1985. The Complexity of some Polynomial Network Consistency Algorithms for Constraint Satisfaction Problems”, Artificial Intelligence 25:65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pollock, J. 1988. Defeasible Reasoning. Cognitive Science 11:481–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prakken, H. 1995. From Logic to Dialectics in Legal Argument. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on AI and Law, 165–174.Google Scholar
  24. Prakken, H. 1993. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Ph.D. diss., Free University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  25. Reiter, R. 1980. A Logic for Default Reasoning.Artificial Intelligence 13:81–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rescher, N. 1977. Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M. 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4:155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P. 1992. A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53(2–3):125–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sycara, K. 1987. Resolving Adversarial Conflicts: An Approach Integrating Case-Based and Analytic Methods. Ph.D. diss., School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  30. Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Yakemovic, K.C.B., Conklin, E.J. 1990. Report on a Development Project Use of an Issue-Based Information System. In Proceedings of CSCW 90,105–118.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. I. Karacapilidis
    • 1
  • D. Papadias
    • 2
  • C. P. Pappis
    • 3
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceSwiss Federal Institute of TechnologyLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceThe Hong Kong University of Science and TechnologyClear Water BayHong Kong
  3. 3.Dept. of Industrial ManagementUniversity of PiraeusPiraeusGreece

Personalised recommendations