Abstract
In socio-economic systems, where actors are motivated by different objectives, interests and priorities, it is very difficult to meet all involved party expectations when proposing new solutions. Argumentative approaches have been proposed and demonstrated to be of added value when addressing such decision making problems. In this paper we focus on the following research question: “How to define an attack relation for argumentative decision making in socio-economic systems?” To address this question we propose three kinds of attacks that could be defined in the context of a precise application (packaging selection) and see how the non computer science experts evaluate, against a given set of decision tasks, each of these attacks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Amgoud, L., Bodenstaff, L., Caminada, M., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Prakken, H., Veenen, J., Vreeswijk, G.: Final review and report on formal argumentation system. deliverable d2.6 aspic. Technical report (2006)
Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artif. Intell. 173(3–4), 413–436 (2009)
Arioua, A., Croitoru, M.: Formalizing explanatory dialogues. In: Beierle, C., Dekhtyar, A. (eds.) SUM 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9310, pp. 282–297. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23540-0_19
Arioua, A., Croitoru, M.: A dialectical proof theory for universal acceptance in coherent logic-based argumentation frameworks. In: ECAI, pp. 55–63 (2016)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)
Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Hecham, A.: Formalizing cognitive acceptance of arguments: durum wheat selection interdisciplinary study. Mind. Mach. 27(1), 233–252 (2017)
Bonet, B., Geffner, H.: Arguing for decisions: a qualitative model of decision making. In: Horvitz, E., Jensen, F. (eds.) 12th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Portland, pp. 98–105. Morgan Kaufmann (1996)
Bourguet, J.-R., Thomopoulos, R., Mugnier, M.-L., Abécassis, J.: An artificial intelligence-based approach to deal with argumentation applied to food quality in a public health policy. Expert Syst. Appl. 40(11), 4539–4546 (2013)
Delhomme, B., Taillandier, F., Abi-Zeid, I., Thomopoulos, R., Baudrit, C., Mora, L.: Designing an argumentative decision-aiding tool for urban planning. In: OPDE 2017, Montpellier, France, October 2017
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. J. 77, 321–357 (1995)
Fox, J., Das, S.K.: Safe and Sound - Artificial Intelligence in Hazardous Applications. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)
Gaggl, S.A., Linsbichler, T., Maratea, M., Woltran, S.: Benchmark selection at ICCMA 2017 (2017)
Kraus, S., Sycara, K.P., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artif. Intell. 104(1–2), 1–69 (1998)
Mackenzie, J.: Begging the question in non-cumulative systems. J. Philos. Logic 8, 117–133 (1979)
Marugán, A.P., Márquez, F.P.G.: Decision-Making Management. Academic Press, Cambridge (2017)
Ouerdane, W., Maudet, N., Tsoukiàs, A.: Argumentation theory and decision aiding. In: Ehrgott, M., Figueira, J., Greco, S. (eds.) Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 142. Springer, Boston (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5904-1_7
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum. Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2011)
Rescher, N.: The role of rhetoric in rational argumentation. Argumentation 12(2), 315–323 (1997)
Sycara, K.P.: Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theor. Decis. 28(3), 203–242 (1990)
Thomopoulos, R., Croitoru, M., Tamani, N.: Decision support for agri-food chains: a reverse engineering argumentation-based approach. Ecol. Inform. 26(2), 182–191 (2015)
Tremblay, J., Abi-Zeid, I.: Value-based argumentation for policy decision analysis: methodology and an exploratory case study of a hydroelectric project in Québec. Ann. Oper. Res. 236(1), 233–253 (2016)
Walton, D., Macagno, F.: A classification system for argumentation schemes. Argum. Comput. 6(3), 219–245 (2015)
Yun, B., Bisquert, P., Buche, P., Croitoru, M.: Arguing about end-of-life of packagings: preferences to the rescue. In: Garoufallou, E., Subirats Coll, I., Stellato, A., Greenberg, J. (eds.) MTSR 2016. CCIS, vol. 672, pp. 119–131. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49157-8_10
Yun, B., Vesic, S., Croitoru, M., Bisquert, P., Thomopoulos, R.: A structural benchmark for logical argumentation frameworks. In: Adams, N., Tucker, A., Weston, D. (eds.) IDA 2017. LNCS, vol. 10584, pp. 334–346. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68765-0_28
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the participants to the ECIDCM 2016 training school. We also acknowledge the support of the Pack4Fresh project. Many thanks to Patrice Buche for his insights and help with the experimental set up.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Yun, B., Thomopoulos, R., Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M. (2018). Defining Argumentation Attacks in Practice: An Experiment in Food Packaging Consumer Expectations. In: Chapman, P., Endres, D., Pernelle, N. (eds) Graph-Based Representation and Reasoning. ICCS 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10872. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91379-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91379-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-91378-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-91379-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)