Abstract
In this paper, we present two different formal frameworks for representing decision making. In both frameworks, decisions have multiple attributes and meet different goals. In the second framework, decisions take into account preferences over goals. We also study a family of decision functions representing making decisions with different criteria, including decisions meeting all goals, most goals, goals no other decisions meet, and most preferred achievable goals. For each decision function, we define an argumentation-based computational mechanism for computing and explaining the selected decisions. We make connections between decision making and argumentation semantics, i.e., selected decisions in a decision making framework are admissible arguments in the corresponding argumentation framework. The main advantage of our approach is that it not only selects decisions but also gives an argumentation-based justification of selected decisions.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Art. Int. 173(3-4) (2009)
Black, E., Atkinson, K.: Choosing persuasive arguments for action. In: The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2011)
Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Argumentation in AI, pp. 25–44. Springer (2009)
Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M., Toni, F.: Towards argumentation-based contract negotiation. In: Proc. COMMA (2008)
Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. AIJ 170, 114–159 (2006)
Fan, X., Craven, R., Singer, R., Toni, F., Williams, M.: Assumption-based argumentation for decision-making with preferences: A medical case study. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds.) CLIMA XIV 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8143, pp. 374–390. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Fox, J., Glasspool, D., Patkar, V., Austin, M., Black, L., South, M., Robertson, D., Vincent, C.: Delivering clinical dec. support services: There is nothing as practical as a good theory. J. of Biom. Inf. 43(5) (2010)
Fox, J., Krause, P., Elvang-Gøransson, M.: Argumentation as a general framework for uncertain reasoning. In: Proc. UAI, pp. 428–434 (1993)
Matt, P.-A., Toni, F., Vaccari, J.R.: Dominant decisions by argumentation agents. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6057, pp. 42–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Nawwab, F.S., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: A methodology for action-selection using value-based argumentation. In: Proc. COMMA, pp. 264–275 (2008)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Fan, X., Toni, F. (2014). Decision Making with Assumption-Based Argumentation. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds) Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation. TAFA 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8306. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54373-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54373-9_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54372-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54373-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)