Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Quantitative Deliberation Model and the Method of Consensus Building

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Complex, Intelligent, and Software Intensive Systems (CISIS 2017)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 611))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 2308 Accesses

Abstract

Deliberation is an effective method to solve complex problems. Unlike the persuasion and negotiation, deliberation is necessary to consider uncertainty information representation and processing. This paper proposes a quantitative deliberation model (QuDM) based on IBIS. Firstly, the IBIS model is simplified, without considering the specialization and generalization of the issue in the model, and the argument is divided into two parts: the premise and the conclusion. Premise and conclusion are all called statement. Then the uncertainty of argument’s premise and the intensity of argument are expressed by certainty-factors. In order to determine the certainty-factors of positions, a consensus building method is proposed, and the credibility values of all statements are calculated by a recursive algorithm. Finally, an example is used to verify the validity and rationality of the proposed method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Modgil, S., Toni, F., Bex, F., Bratko, I., Chesñevar, C., Dvořák, W., Falappa, M., Fan, X., Gaggl, S., García, A., González, M., Gordon, T., Leite, J., Možina, M., Reed, C., Simari, G., Szeider, S., Torroni, P., Woltran, S.: The added value of argumentation. In: Ossowski, S. (ed.) Agreement Technologies, vol. 8, pp. 357–403. Springer, Dordrecht (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., McLaren, B.: Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Comput. Support. Learn. 5, 43–102 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Heras, S., Jordán, J., Botti, V., Julián, V.: Case-based strategies for argumentation dialogues in agent societies. Inf. Sci. 223, 1–30 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY,USA (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: 4th International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS 2000), pp. 7–12. IEEE Press (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Toulmin, S.E.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kunz, W., Rittel, H.W.J.: Issues as Elements of Information Systems. University of California, Berkeley (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Eric, M.K., John-Jules, C.M., Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: A formal argumentation framework for deliberation dialogues. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 73–90 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  10. McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., Parsons, S.: The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 22, 95–132 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Conklin, J., Bergman, M.: gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Trans. Office Inform. Syst. 6, 303–331 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Xiong, C.Q., Ouyang, Y., Mei, Q.: Argumentation model based on certainty-factor and algorithms of argument evaluation. J. Softw. 25, 1225–1238 (2014)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Shortliffe, E.H., Buchanan, B.G.: A model of inexact reasoning in medicine. Math. Bio. 23, 351–379 (1975)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant number 61075059, 61300127.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caiquan Xiong .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Li, X., Xiong, C., Guo, J., Liu, G. (2018). Quantitative Deliberation Model and the Method of Consensus Building. In: Barolli, L., Terzo, O. (eds) Complex, Intelligent, and Software Intensive Systems. CISIS 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 611. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61566-0_58

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61566-0_58

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61565-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61566-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics