Hermes: supporting argumentative discourse in multi-agent decision making
AAAI '98/IAAI '98 Proceedings of the fifteenth national/tenth conference on Artificial intelligence/Innovative applications of artificial intelligence
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 and standards of proof
Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof
Artificial Intelligence
Using arguments for making and explaining decisions
Artificial Intelligence
Argument Schemes and Critical Questions for Decision Aiding Process
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008
On the qualitative comparison of decisions having positive and negative features
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
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
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Usually, in argumentation, the proof-standards that are used are fixed a priori by the procedure. However decision-aiding is a context where these may be modified dynamically during the process, depending on the responses of the client. The expert indeed needs to adapt and refine its choice of an appropriate method of aggregation, so that it fits the preference model inferred from the interaction. In this paper we examine how this aspect can be handled in an argumentation-based decision-aiding framework. The first contribution of the paper is conceptual: the notion of a concept lattice based on simple properties and allowing to navigate among the different proof-standards is put forward. We then show how this can be integrated within the Carneades model while still preserving its essential properties; and illustrates our proposal with a detailed example.