Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
could count interests that are satisfied to a certain degree (like e.g. [5]), or compare out-
comes in a pairwise fashion and count the number of interests that one outcome satisfies
to a higher degree than another (like e.g. [7,13]).
Currently, we suppose that the interests and importance ordering among them are
given in a knowledge base. We can make our framework more flexible by allowing
such statements to be derived in a way that is similar to the derivation of statements
about the satisfaction of interests.
We would also like to look into the interplay between different issues promoting or
demoting the same interest. For example, a high salary and a high position both lead
to status, but together they may lead to even more status. Or a low salary may promote
cutback, but providing a lease car will demote it. Do these effects cancel each other out?
The principles that play a role here are related to the questions posed in the context of
accrual of arguments [18].
Since our long-term goal is the development of an automated negotiation support
system, we plan to look into negotiation strategies that are based on qualitative, interest-
based preferences as described here, as opposed to utility-based approaches currently
in use. For the same reason, we plan to implement the argumentation framework for
reasoning about interest-based preferences that we have presented here. Another inter-
esting question in this context is how interest-based preferences can be elicited from a
human user.
Acknowledgements.
We thank Henry Prakken for useful comments on earlier drafts
of this paper. This research is supported by the Dutch Technology Foundation STW,
applied science division of NWO and the Technology Program of the Ministry of Eco-
nomic Affairs. It is part of the Pocket Negotiator project with grant number VICI-project
08075.
References
1. Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-
offs. Cambridge University Press (1993)
2. Brewka, G.: A rank based description language for qualitative preferences. In: 16th European
Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), pp. 303-307 (2004)
3. Keeney, R.L.: Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Harvard Uni-
versity Press (1992)
4. Rahwan, I., Pasquier, P., Sonenberg, L., Dignum, F.: On the benefits of exploiting underlying
goals in argument-based negotiation. In: 22nd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI
2007), pp. 116-121 (2007)
5. Amgoud, L., Bonnefon, J.F., Prade, H.: An Argumentation-Based Approach to Multiple Cri-
teria Decision. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 269-280.
Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
6. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artificial
Intelligence 173(3-4), 413-436 (2009)
7. Ouerdane, W., Maudet, N., Tsoukias, A.: Argument schemes and critical questions for deci-
sion aiding process. In: Besnard, P., Doutre, S., Hunter, A. (eds.) Computational Models of
Argument (COMMA 2008). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 285-
296. IOS Press (2008)
