Extending argumentation to make good decisions
Source1st International Conference on Algorithmic Decision Theory, ADT 2009
Google Scholar check
MetadataShow full item record
Argumentation has been acknowledged as a powerful mechanism for automated decision making. In this context several recent works have studied the problem of accommodating preference information in argumentation. The majority of these studies rely on Dung's abstract argumentation framework and its underlying acceptability semantics. In this paper we show that Dung's acceptability semantics, when applied to a preference-based argumentation framework for decision making purposes, may lead to counter intuitive results, as it does not take appropriately into account the preference information. To remedy this we propose a new acceptability semantics, called super-stable extension semantics, and present some of its properties. Moreover, we show that argumentation can be understood as a multiple criteria decision problem, making in this way results from decision theory applicable to argumentation. © 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Amgoud, L.; Dimopoulos, Yannis; Moraïtis, Pavlos (2008)Decision making is usually based on the comparative evaluation of different alternatives by means of a decision criterion. The whole decision process is compacted into a criterion formula on the basis of which alternatives ...
Papaioannou, Maria; Schizas, Christos N. (2015)There are several types of Diagnostic Decision Support Systems (DDSS) but all move towards a common direction: provide assistance to the doctors/clinicians to make the right diagnosis for a specific patient, minimizing as ...
Falas, Tasos; Papadopoulos, George Angelos; Stafylopatis, Andreas N. (2003)This paper presents an overview of the state-of-the-art on decision support systems (DSS) in telecare. The main aspect examined is the use of smaller subsystems -components in an integrated DSS, with emphasis on two ...