A Decision-Making approach where Argumentation added value tackles Social Choice deficiencies

Pierre Bisquert 1 Madalina Croitoru 1 Christos Kaklamanis 2 Nikos Karanikolas 3
1 GRAPHIK - Graphs for Inferences on Knowledge
LIRMM - Laboratoire d'Informatique de Robotique et de Microélectronique de Montpellier, CRISAM - Inria Sophia Antipolis - Méditerranée
3 LIG Laboratoire d'Informatique de Grenoble - IIHM
LIG - Laboratoire d'Informatique de Grenoble, Inria - Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique
Abstract : Collective decision-making is classically done via social choice theory with each member of the group expressing preferences as a (total) order over a given set of alternatives, and the group's aggregated preference is computed using a voting rule. However, such methods do not take into account the rationale behind agents' preferences. Our research hypothesis is that a decision made by a group of participants understanding the qualitative rationale (i.e., arguments) behind each other's preferences has better chances to be accepted and used in practice. To this end, in this paper, we propose a novel qualitative decision process which combines argumentation with computational social choice for modeling the collective decision-making problem. We show that a qualitative approach based on argumentation produces structured preferences than can overcome some of the social choice deficiencies.
Document type :
Journal articles
Complete list of metadatas

Cited literature [32 references]  Display  Hide  Download

Contributor : Pierre Bisquert <>
Submitted on : Thursday, July 11, 2019 - 3:59:44 PM
Last modification on : Saturday, July 13, 2019 - 1:04:03 AM




Pierre Bisquert, Madalina Croitoru, Christos Kaklamanis, Nikos Karanikolas. A Decision-Making approach where Argumentation added value tackles Social Choice deficiencies. Progress in Artificial Intelligence, 2019, 8 (2), pp.229-239. ⟨10.1007/s13748-019-00173-3⟩. ⟨lirmm-02180318⟩



Record views


Files downloads