Abstract
The need of making decisions pervades every field of human activity. Several decision support methods and software tools are available in the literature, relying upon different modelling assumptions and often producing different results. In this paper we investigate the relationships between two such approaches: the recently introduced QuAD frameworks, based on the IBIS model and quantitative argumentation, and the decision matrix method, widely adopted in engineering. In addition, we describe Arg&Dec (standing for Argue & Decide), a prototype web application for collaborative decision-making, encompassing the two methodologies and assisting their comparison through automated transformation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Available at www.arganddec.com.
- 2.
Suitable interpretation and elicitation of base scores are a crucial and non trivial issue: see some discussion in [4].
- 3.
Here, separability amounts to absence of interaction between attackers and supporters.
- 4.
The expression of \(f_{supp}\) corresponds to the T-conorm operator also referred to as probabilistic sum in the literature [16].
- 5.
The structural considerations we draw apply equally to QFs and to the underlying IBIS model.
- 6.
As explained in more detail in [4], this default assignment is not simply motivated by the fact that 0.5 is the middle point of the [0, 1] interval: it represents the fact that there is no a-priori attitude towards the acceptance or rejection of an argument and ensures that, in the presence of symmetric attackers and supporters, \(\mathcal {SF}(a)\) coincides with \(\mathcal {BS}(a)\).
References
Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artif. Intell. 173(3–4), 413–436 (2009)
Aurisicchio, M., Bracewell, R.H.: Capturing an integrated design information space with a diagram based approach. J. Eng. Des. 24, 397–428 (2013)
Baroni, P., Romano, M., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Bertanza, G.: An argumentation-based approach for automatic evaluation of design debates. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds.) CLIMA XIV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8143, pp. 340–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Baroni, P., Romano, M., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Bertanza, G.: Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation. Argument Comput. 6(1), 24–49 (2015)
Shum, S.J.B., Selvin, A.M., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C.B., Nuseibeh, B.: Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC. In: Dutoit, A.H., McCall, R., Mistrik, I., Paech, B. (eds.) Rationale Management in Software Engineering, pp. 111–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Shum, S.J.B.: Cohere: Towards web 2.0 argumentation. In: Besnard, P., Doutre, S., Hunter, A. (eds.) Proceedings of COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 172, pp. 97–108. IOS Press (2008)
Shum, S.J.B., Hammond, N.: Argumentation-based design rationale: What use at what cost? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 40(4), 603–652 (1994)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 366–377. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Churchman, C.W.: Wicked problems. Manage. Sci. 14(4), B141–B142 (1967)
Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Bonnefon, J.F.: On the qualitative comparison of decisions having positive and negative features. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 32, 385–417 (2008)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)
Evripidou, V., Toni, F.: Argumentation and voting for an intelligent user empowering business directory on the web. In: Krötzsch, M., Straccia, U. (eds.) RR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7497, pp. 209–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Fischer, G., Lemke, A.C., McCall, R., Morch, A.I.: Making argumentation serve design. Hum. Comput. Interact. 6(3), 393–419 (1991)
Franklin, B.: Letter to Joseph Priestley. In: Labaree, L.W., Bell, W.J. (eds.) Mr. Franklin: A selection from his personal letters. Yale University Press, New Haven (1956)
Klement, E.P., Mesiar, R., Pap, E.: Triangular Norms. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)
Kunz, W., Rittel, H.: Issues as elements of information systems. Working Paper 131, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, California (1970)
Labreuche, C.: A general framework for explaining the results of a multi-attribute preference model. Artif. Intell. 175(7–8), 1410–1448 (2011)
Müller, J., Hunter, A.: An argumentation-based approach for decision making. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 24th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, (ICTAI 2012), pp. 564–571. IEEE Computer Society, 7–9 November 2012 (2012)
Pugh, S.: Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham (1991)
Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M.: Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4(4), 155–169 (1973)
Rogers, P., Blenko, M.W.: Who has the D? how clear decision roles enhance organizational performance. Harvard Bus. Rev. 84(1), 52–61 (2006)
Triantaphyllou, E.: Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A Comparative Study. Kluwer, London (2000)
Triantaphyllou, E., Baig, K.: The impact of aggregating benefit and cost criteria in four MCDA methods. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 52(2), 213–226 (2005)
Triantaphyllou, E., Mann, S.H.: An examination of the effectiveness of multi-dimensional decision-making methods: a decision-making paradox. Decis. Support Syst. 5(3), 303–312 (1989)
Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S.D.: Product Design and Development, 3rd edn. Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York (2004)
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the referees for their helpful comments and Antonio Rago for his help with Arg&Dec in the testing phase. F. Toni was partially supported by the EPSRC TRaDAr project, P. Baroni by the INDAM-GNCS project EMADS.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Aurisicchio, M., Baroni, P., Pellegrini, D., Toni, F. (2015). Comparing and Integrating Argumentation-Based with Matrix-Based Decision Support in Arg&Dec . In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds) Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation. TAFA 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9524. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28459-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28460-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)