Decision making, often viewed as a form of reasoning toward action, has raised the interest of many scholars including economists, psychologists, and computer scientists for a long time. Any decision problem amounts to selecting the “best” or sufficiently “good” action(s) that are feasible among different alternatives, given some available information about the current state of the world and the consequences of potential actions. Available information may be incomplete or pervaded with uncertainty. Besides, the goodness of an action is judged by estimating how much its possible consequences fit the preferences of the decision maker. This agent is assumed to behave in a rational way [29] amgoud-woold, at least in the sense that his decisions should be as much as possible consistent with his preferences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
L. Amgoud. A general argumentation framework for inference and decision making. In 21st Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI’2005, pages 26–33, 2005.
L. Amgoud, J-F. Bonnefon, and H. Prade. An argumentation-based approach to multiple criteria decision. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU’05), pages 269–280, 2005.
L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol. Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. In International Journal of Automated Reasoning, 29, N2:125–169, 2002.
L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. In Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34:197–216, 2002.
L. Amgoud and H. Prade. Explaining qualitative decision under uncertainty by argumentation. In Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’06), pages 219–224, 2006.
K. Atkinson. Value-based argumentation for democratic decision support. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Models of Natural Argument (COMMA’06), pages 47–58, 2006.
K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. Justifying practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA’04), pages 87–90, 2004.
P. Baroni, M. Giacomin, and G. Guida. Scc-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. In Artificial Intelligence, 168 (1-2):162–210, 2005.
Ph. Besnard and A. Hunter. A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. In Artificial Intelligence, 128:203–235, 2001.
B. Bonet and H. Geffner. Arguing for decisions: A qualitative model of decision making. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI’96), pages 98–105, 1996.
J.-F. Bonnefon and H. Fargier. Comparing sets of positive and negative arguments: Empirical assessment of seven qualitative rules. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’06), pages 16–20, 2006.
M. Bratman. Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, 1987.
J.T. Cacioppo, W.L. Gardner, and G.G. Bernston. Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. In Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1:3–25, 1997.
C. Cayrol, V. Royer, and C. Saurel. Management of preferences in assumption-based reasoning. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 682:13–22, 1993.
Y. Dimopoulos, P. Moraitis, and A. Tsoukias. Argumentation based modeling of decision aiding for autonomous agents. In IEEE-WIC-ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, pages 99–105, 2004.
D. Dubois and H. Fargier. Qualitative decision making with bipolar information. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’06), pages 175–186, 2006.
P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. In Artificial Intelligence, 77:321–357, 1995.
M. Elvang-Goransson, J. Fox, and P. Krause. Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. In Proceedings of 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI’93), pages 114 – 121, 1993.
J. Fox and S. Das. Safe and Sound. Artificial Intelligence in Hazardous Applications. AAAI Press, The MIT Press, 2000.
J. Fox and S. Parsons. On using arguments for reasoning about actions and values. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Qualitative Preferences in Deliberation and Practical Reasoning, Stanford, 1997.
R. Girle, D. Hitchcock, P. McBurney, and B. Verheij. Decision support for practical reasoning. C. Reed and T. Norman (Editors): Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation. Argumentation Library. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 2003.
T. Gordon and G. Brewka. How to buy a porsche: An approach to defeasible decision making (preliminary report). In In the workshop of Comutational Dialectics, 1994.
T. F. Gordon and N. I. Karacapilidis. The Zeno Argumentation Framework. Kunstliche Intelligenz, 13(3):20–29, 1999.
J. Pollock. The logical foundations of goal-regression planning in autonomous agents. In Artificial Intelligence, 106(2):267–334, 1998.
J. Raz. Practical reasoning. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978.
G. R. Simari and R. P. Loui. A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. In Artificial Intelligence and Law, 53:125–157, 1992.
S. W. Tan and J. Pearl. Qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’94), pages 928–933, 1994.
D. Walton. Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning, volume 29. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1996.
M. J. Wooldridge. Reasoning about rational agents. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, London England, 2000.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag US
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Amgoud, L. (2009). Argumentation for Decision Making. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-98196-3
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-98197-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)