An argumentation framework for deriving qualitative risk sensitive preferences

Authors:
Wietske Visser;Koen V. Hindriks;Catholijn M. Jonker
Affiliations:
Man-Machine Interaction Group, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands;Man-Machine Interaction Group, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands;Man-Machine Interaction Group, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Venue:
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
Year:
2011

Citing 8
Cited 0

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

Artificial Intelligence
Abstract argumentation systems

Artificial Intelligence
Qualitative decision theory with preference relations and comparative uncertainty: an axiomatic approach

Artificial Intelligence - Special issue: Fuzzy set and possibility theory-based methods in artificial intelligence
Using arguments for making and explaining decisions

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

Proceedings of the 2006 conference on ECAI 2006: 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence August 29 -- September 1, 2006, Riva del Garda, Italy
On the qualitative comparison of decisions having positive and negative features

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Argumentation-based preference modelling with incomplete information

CLIMA'09 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Computational logic in multi-agent systems
Arguing for decisions: a qualitative model of decision making

UAI'96 Proceedings of the Twelfth international conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Preferences are derived in part from knowledge. Knowledge, however, may be defeasible. We present an argumentation framework for deriving qualitative, multi-attribute preferences and incorporate defeasible reasoning about knowledge. Intuitively, preferences based on defeasible conclusions are not as strong as preferences based on certain conclusions, since defeasible conclusions may turn out not to hold. This introduces risk when such knowledge is used in practical reasoning. Typically, a risk prone attitude will result in different preferences than a risk averse attitude. In this paper we introduce qualitative strategies for deriving risk sensitive preferences.