Argumentation-Based Decision Making and Structural Models of Personality Pietro Baroni and Federico Cerutti and Massimiliano Giacomin and Giovanni Guida Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione, Universit`a di Brescia Via Branze 38, I-25123 Brescia, Italy December 3, 2010 ARGAIP 2010 c 2010 Federico Cerutti <[email protected]>
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Argumentation-Based Decision Making andStructural Models of Personality
Pietro Baroni and Federico Cerutti and MassimilianoGiacomin and Giovanni Guida
Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione, Universita di BresciaVia Branze 38, I-25123 Brescia, Italy
The advice should be presented in a form which can be readilyunderstood by decision makers
There should be ready access to both information and reasoningunderpinning the advice
If decision support involves details which are unusual to thedecision maker, it is of primary importance that s/he can discussthese details with his advisor [Girle et al., 2003]
Argumentation Framework for Decision SupportProblemAn Argumentation Framework for Decision Support Problem(AFDSP ) is a 12-ple 〈APAS , APRAS , AEAS , AV AS , AFAS ,AMAS ,RPAS , RPRAS , REAS , RV AS , RFAS , RMAS〉 s.t.:
APAS is a set of instances of PAS;
APRAS is a set of instances of PRAS;
AEAS is the set of instances of EAS;
AV AS is a set of instances of VAS;
AFAS is a set of instances of FAS;
AMAS is a set of instances of MAS;
RPAS is a set of instances of PAtS1 and PAtS2;
RPRAS is a set of instances of PRAtS;
REAS is a set of instances of EAtS1 and EDefence;
RV AS is a set of instances of VAtS, VDeS1, VDeS2, VAAtS;
Argumentation Framework with RecursiveAttacks (AFRA)
An Argumentation Framework with Recursive Attacks (AFRA) is apair 〈A,R〉 where A is a set of arguments and R is a set of attacks,namely pairs (A,X ) s.t. A ∈ A and (X ∈ R or X ∈ A).
Given an attack α = (A,X ) ∈ R, we will say that A is the source ofα, denoted as src(α) = A and X is the target of α, denoted astrg(α) = X . [Baroni et al., 2009b]
The instances of argument schemes in AFDSP compose the set ofarguments in AFRA and the instances of attack schemes in AFDSPgive rise to the attack relation in AFRA.
Let Φ = 〈APAS , APRAS , AEAS , AV AS , AFAS , AMAS ,RPAS , RPRAS ,REAS , RV AS , RFAS , RMAS〉 be an AFDSP , the correspondingAFRA is defined as Γ = 〈A,R〉 s.t.
A = APAS ∪ APRAS ∪ AEAS ∪ AV AS ∪ AFAS ∪ AMAS ; and
[Baroni et al., 2009a] Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., andGuida, G. (2009a).An argumentation-based approach to modeling decision supportcontexts with what-if capabilities.In AAAI Fall Symposium. Technical Report SS-09-06, pages 2–7.AAAI Press.
[Baroni et al., 2009b] Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., andGuida, G. (2009b).Encompassing attacks to attacks in abstract argumentationframeworks.In Proc. of ECSQARU 2009, pages 83–94, Verona, I.
[Girle et al., 2003] Girle, R., Hitchcock, D. L., McBurney, P., andVerheij, B. (2003).Decision support for practical reasoning: A theoretical andcomputational perspective.In Reed, C. and Norman, T. J., editors, Argumentation Machines.New Frontiers in Argument and Computation, pages 55–84. Kluwer.
[Greenwood et al., 2003] Greenwood, K., Capon, T. B., andMcBurney, P. (2003).Towards a computational account of persuasion in law.In Proc. of ICAIL ’03, pages 22–31.
[Walton, 1996] Walton, D. N. (1996).Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.