Comparing sets of positive and negative arguments: Empirical assessment of seven qualitative rules

Authors:
Jean-François Bonnefon;Hélène Fargier
Affiliations:
LTC-CNRS, 5 allées Antonio Machado 31058 Toulouse Cedex 9, France. E-mail: bonnefon@univ-tlse2.fr;IRIT-CNRS, 118 Route de Narbonne 31062 Toulouse Cedex, France. E-mail: fargier@irit.fr
Venue:
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on ECAI 2006: 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence August 29 -- September 1, 2006, Riva del Garda, Italy
Year:
2006

Citing 6
Cited 9

Refinements of the maximin approach to decision-making in a fuzzy environment

Fuzzy Sets and Systems - Special issue on fuzzy optimization
Bipolar possibility theory in preference modeling: Representation, fusion and optimal solutions

Information Fusion
Qualitative decision under uncertainty: back to expected utility

IJCAI'03 Proceedings of the 18th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence
An order of magnitude calculus

UAI'95 Proceedings of the Eleventh 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
On the qualitative comparison of sets of positive and negative affects

ECSQARU'05 Proceedings of the 8th European conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty

Folk Arguments, Numerical Taxonomy and Case-Based Reasoning

ECCBR '08 Proceedings of the 9th European conference on Advances in Case-Based Reasoning
Arguing over Actions That Involve Multiple Criteria: A Critical Review

ECSQARU '07 Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty
Using arguments for making and explaining decisions

Artificial Intelligence
On the qualitative comparison of decisions having positive and negative features

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
A lightweight formal model of two-phase democratic deliberation

Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2010: The Twenty-Third Annual Conference
Argument schemes for two-phase democratic deliberation

Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
An argumentation framework for deriving qualitative risk sensitive preferences

IEA/AIE'11 Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Industrial engineering and other applications of applied intelligent systems conference on Modern approaches in applied intelligence - Volume Part II
An argumentation framework for qualitative multi-criteria preferences

TAFA'11 Proceedings of the First international conference on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation
Sharing online cultural experiences: an argument-based approach

MDAI'12 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Many decisions can be represented as bipolar, qualitative sets of arguments: Arguments can be pros or cons, and ranked according to their importance, but not numerically evaluated. The problem is then to compare these qualitative, bipolar sets. In this paper (a collaboration between a computer scientist and a psychologist), seven procedures for such a comparison are empirically evaluated, by matching their predictions to choices made by 62 human participants on a selection of 33 situations. Results favor cardinality-based procedures, and in particular one that allows for the internal cancellation of positive and negative arguments within a decision.