Argumentation-based preference modelling with incomplete information

Authors:
Wietske Visser;Koen V. Hindriks;Catholijn M. Jonker
Affiliations:
Man Machine Interaction Group, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands;Man Machine Interaction Group, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands;Man Machine Interaction Group, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Venue:
CLIMA'09 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Computational logic in multi-agent systems
Year:
2009

Citing 9
Cited 1

On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games

Artificial Intelligence
Modeling Dialogues Using Argumentation

ICMAS '00 Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS-2000)
Qualitative choice logic

Artificial Intelligence - Special issue on nonmonotonic reasoning
Argumentation-based negotiation

The Knowledge Engineering Review
A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning

ICAIL '05 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Argumentation in artificial intelligence

Artificial Intelligence
Preference-based argumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
CP-nets: a tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Possibility theory as a basis for qualitative decision theory

IJCAI'95 Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 2

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

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

No intelligent decision support system functions even remotely without knowing the preferences of the user. A major problem is that the way average users think about and formulate their preferences does not match the utility-based quantitative frameworks currently used in decision support systems. For the average user qualitative models are a better fit. This paper presents an argumentation-based framework for the modelling of, and automated reasoning about multiissue preferences of a qualitative nature. The framework presents preferences according to the lexicographic ordering that is well-understood by humans. The main contribution of the paper is that it shows how to reason about preferences when only incomplete information is available. An adequate strategy is proposed that allows reasoning with incomplete information and it is shown how to incorporate this strategy into the argumentation-based framework for modelling preferences.