The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof
Artificial Intelligence
Value-Based Argumentation for Democratic Decision Support
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
Justifying Actions by Accruing Arguments
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
Preference-based search using example-critiquing with suggestions
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Arguing for decisions: a qualitative model of decision making
UAI'96 Proceedings of the Twelfth international conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence
An argumentation-based approach to multiple criteria decision
ECSQARU'05 Proceedings of the 8th European conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty
Argumentation for decision support
DEXA'06 Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications
Dealing with the dynamics of proof-standard in argumentation-based decision aiding
Proceedings of the 2010 conference on STAIRS 2010: Proceedings of the Fifth Starting AI Researchers' Symposium
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Our ambition in this paper is to begin to specify in argumentative terms (some of) the steps involved in a decision-aiding process. To do that, we make use of the popular notion of argument schemes, and specify the related critical questions. A hierarchical structure of argument schemes allows to decompose the process into several distinct steps---and for each of them the underlying premises are made explicit, which allows in turn to identify how these steps can be dialectically defeated via critical questions. This work initiates a systematic study which aims at constituting a significant step forward for forthcoming decision-aiding tools. The kind of system that we foresee and sketch here would allow: (i) to present a recommendation that can be explicitly justified; (ii) to revise any piece of reasoning involved in this process, and be informed of the consequences of such moves; and possibly (iii) to stimulate the client by generating contradictory arguments.