Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Buchtitelbild

2015 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Comparing and Integrating Argumentation-Based with Matrix-Based Decision Support in Arg&Dec

verfasst von : Marco Aurisicchio, Pietro Baroni, Dario Pellegrini, Francesca Toni

Erschienen in: Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The need of making decisions pervades every field of human activity. Several decision support methods and software tools are available in the literature, relying upon different modelling assumptions and often producing different results. In this paper we investigate the relationships between two such approaches: the recently introduced QuAD frameworks, based on the IBIS model and quantitative argumentation, and the decision matrix method, widely adopted in engineering. In addition, we describe Arg&Dec (standing for Argue & Decide), a prototype web application for collaborative decision-making, encompassing the two methodologies and assisting their comparison through automated transformation.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Nächstes Kapitel Reasons and Options for Updating an Opponent Model in Persuasion Dialogues
Fußnoten
1
 
2
Suitable interpretation and elicitation of base scores are a crucial and non trivial issue: see some discussion in [4].
 
3
Here, separability amounts to absence of interaction between attackers and supporters.
 
4
The expression of \(f_{supp}\) corresponds to the T-conorm operator also referred to as probabilistic sum in the literature [16].
 
5
The structural considerations we draw apply equally to QFs and to the underlying IBIS model.
 
6
As explained in more detail in [4], this default assignment is not simply motivated by the fact that 0.5 is the middle point of the [0, 1] interval: it represents the fact that there is no a-priori attitude towards the acceptance or rejection of an argument and ensures that, in the presence of symmetric attackers and supporters, \(\mathcal {SF}(a)\) coincides with \(\mathcal {BS}(a)\).
 
Literatur
1.
2.
Aurisicchio, M., Bracewell, R.H.: Capturing an integrated design information space with a diagram based approach. J. Eng. Des. 24, 397–428 (2013)CrossRef
3.
Baroni, P., Romano, M., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Bertanza, G.: An argumentation-based approach for automatic evaluation of design debates. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds.) CLIMA XIV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8143, pp. 340–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRef
4.
Baroni, P., Romano, M., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Bertanza, G.: Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation. Argument Comput. 6(1), 24–49 (2015)CrossRef
5.
Shum, S.J.B., Selvin, A.M., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C.B., Nuseibeh, B.: Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC. In: Dutoit, A.H., McCall, R., Mistrik, I., Paech, B. (eds.) Rationale Management in Software Engineering, pp. 111–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRef
6.
Shum, S.J.B.: Cohere: Towards web 2.0 argumentation. In: Besnard, P., Doutre, S., Hunter, A. (eds.) Proceedings of COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 172, pp. 97–108. IOS Press (2008)
7.
Shum, S.J.B., Hammond, N.: Argumentation-based design rationale: What use at what cost? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 40(4), 603–652 (1994)CrossRef
8.
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 366–377. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRef
9.
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRef
10.
Churchman, C.W.: Wicked problems. Manage. Sci. 14(4), B141–B142 (1967)CrossRef
11.
Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Bonnefon, J.F.: On the qualitative comparison of decisions having positive and negative features. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 32, 385–417 (2008)MATHMathSciNet
12.
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MATHMathSciNetCrossRef
13.
Evripidou, V., Toni, F.: Argumentation and voting for an intelligent user empowering business directory on the web. In: Krötzsch, M., Straccia, U. (eds.) RR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7497, pp. 209–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRef
14.
Fischer, G., Lemke, A.C., McCall, R., Morch, A.I.: Making argumentation serve design. Hum. Comput. Interact. 6(3), 393–419 (1991)CrossRef
15.
Franklin, B.: Letter to Joseph Priestley. In: Labaree, L.W., Bell, W.J. (eds.) Mr. Franklin: A selection from his personal letters. Yale University Press, New Haven (1956)
16.
17.
Kunz, W., Rittel, H.: Issues as elements of information systems. Working Paper 131, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, California (1970)
18.
Labreuche, C.: A general framework for explaining the results of a multi-attribute preference model. Artif. Intell. 175(7–8), 1410–1448 (2011)MATHMathSciNetCrossRef
19.
Müller, J., Hunter, A.: An argumentation-based approach for decision making. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 24th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, (ICTAI 2012), pp. 564–571. IEEE Computer Society, 7–9 November 2012 (2012)
20.
Pugh, S.: Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham (1991)
21.
Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M.: Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4(4), 155–169 (1973)CrossRef
22.
Rogers, P., Blenko, M.W.: Who has the D? how clear decision roles enhance organizational performance. Harvard Bus. Rev. 84(1), 52–61 (2006)
23.
Triantaphyllou, E.: Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A Comparative Study. Kluwer, London (2000)CrossRef
24.
Triantaphyllou, E., Baig, K.: The impact of aggregating benefit and cost criteria in four MCDA methods. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 52(2), 213–226 (2005)CrossRef
25.
Triantaphyllou, E., Mann, S.H.: An examination of the effectiveness of multi-dimensional decision-making methods: a decision-making paradox. Decis. Support Syst. 5(3), 303–312 (1989)CrossRef
26.
Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S.D.: Product Design and Development, 3rd edn. Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York (2004)
Metadaten
Titel
Comparing and Integrating Argumentation-Based with Matrix-Based Decision Support in Arg&Dec
verfasst von
Marco Aurisicchio
Pietro Baroni
Dario Pellegrini
Francesca Toni
Copyright-Jahr
2015
Buch
Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28459-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-28460-6

Copyright-Jahr: 2015

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_1