Value-based argumentation framework built from prioritized qualitative choice logic

International audienceThe notion of preference is crucial in many fields. This justifies the development of many formalisms for preferences representation such as CP-nets, qualitative choice logic and its extensions. Preferences help to choose the best option in decision making, to compare between arguments in argumentation theory, etc. In this paper, we establish a link between a preference formalism, called Prioritized Qualitative Choice Logic (PQCL) and argumentation theory. We show that for any set of preferences expressed using PQCL (called PQCL theory), a Value-based Argumentation Framework (VAF) can be built. However, we point out some problems related to the evaluation of arguments which does not guarantee the correspondence between elements of PQCL theory and those of its associated VAF. We show that the major problem is due to the evaluation of arguments defined in existing argumentation frameworks, where an absolute status is assigned to each argument: objectively (or skeptically) accepted if it belongs to every extension, subjectively(or credulously) accepted if it is in some extensions and not in others and rejected if it does not belong to any extension. To deal with this problem, we propose to revise the evaluation of arguments in the corresponding VAF. As a result, there is a direct relationship between preferred extensions of the corresponding VAF and preferred models of a set of preferences expressed using PQCL. In addition, rank ordering the set of arguments is possible. The relationship between the two formalisms is interesting since on the one hand, it points out that one should be careful in using argumentation theory for decisionmaking purposes or in formalizing a given problem as an argumentation framework and on the other hand, it makes it possible to use an argumentation framework for preference elicitation

On the relationship between PQCL preference formalism and value-based AF

International audienc

Value-based argumentation framework built from prioritized qualitative choice logic

International audienceThe notion of preference is crucial in many fields. This justifies the development of many formalisms for preferences representation such as CP-nets, qualitative choice logic and its extensions. Preferences help to choose the best option in decision making, to compare between arguments in argumentation theory, etc. In this paper, we establish a link between a preference formalism, called Prioritized Qualitative Choice Logic (PQCL) and argumentation theory. We show that for any set of preferences expressed using PQCL (called PQCL theory), a Value-based Argumentation Framework (VAF) can be built. However, we point out some problems related to the evaluation of arguments which does not guarantee the correspondence between elements of PQCL theory and those of its associated VAF. We show that the major problem is due to the evaluation of arguments defined in existing argumentation frameworks, where an absolute status is assigned to each argument: objectively (or skeptically) accepted if it belongs to every extension, subjectively(or credulously) accepted if it is in some extensions and not in others and rejected if it does not belong to any extension. To deal with this problem, we propose to revise the evaluation of arguments in the corresponding VAF. As a result, there is a direct relationship between preferred extensions of the corresponding VAF and preferred models of a set of preferences expressed using PQCL. In addition, rank ordering the set of arguments is possible. The relationship between the two formalisms is interesting since on the one hand, it points out that one should be careful in using argumentation theory for decisionmaking purposes or in formalizing a given problem as an argumentation framework and on the other hand, it makes it possible to use an argumentation framework for preference elicitation

A model based on influence diagrams for multi-criteria decision making

International audienceIn this paper, we focus on multi-criteria decision-making problems. We propose a model based on influence diagrams; this model is able to handle uncertainty, represent interdependencies among the different decision variables and facilitate communication between the decision-maker and the analyst. The particular structure of the proposed model makes it possible to take into account the alternatives described by an attribute set, the decision-maker's characteristics and preferences, and other information (e.g., internal or external factors) that influence the decision. Modeling the decision problem in terms of influence diagrams requires a lot of work to gather expert knowledge. However, once the model is built, it can be easily and efficiently used for different instances of the decision problem. In fact, using our model simply requires entering some basic information, such as the values of internal or external factors and the decision-maker's characteristics. Our model also defines the importance of each criterion in terms of what is known about the decision maker, the quality index and the utility of each alternative

Building Bayesian Networks from Causal Rules.

International audienceBayesian Networks (BNs) are often used for designing diagnosis decision support systems. They are a well-established method for reasoning under uncertainty and making inferences. But, eliciting the probabilities can be tedious and time-consuming especially in medical domain where variables are often related by qualitative terms rather than probabilities. The goal of this paper is to propose a method for eliciting the probabilities required in BNs by using and transforming causal rules which are often used in medicine. The method consists in first constructing the structure of BNs by reporting medical expert's knowledge in the form of causal rules, and then constructing the parameters of the BNs by transforming the terms used for qualified causal rules into probabilities. Example is given in obesity domain. Further works are needed to reinforce our method like the consideration of circular causal rules

A Revised Qualitative Choice Logic for Handling Prioritized Preferences

International audienc

Raisonnement sous incertitude et en présence des préférences (application à la détection d'intrusions et à la corrélation d'alertes)

LENS-BU Sciences (624982102) / SudocLENS-CRIL (624982203) / SudocSudocFranceF

A Revised Qualitative Choice Logic for Handling Prioritized Preferences

International audienc

Constrained Value-Based Argumentation Framework

International audienc

Two alternatives for handling preferences in qualitative choice logic

International audienc