![](bga.png)
could count interests that are satisfied to a certain de-
gree (like e.g. (Amgoud et al., 2005)), 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. (Ouerdane et al., 2008; van der
Weide et al., 2009)).
Currently, we suppose that the interests and im-
portance ordering among them are given in a knowl-
edge 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 pro-
mote cutback, but providing a lease car will demote
it. Do these effects cancel each other out? The prin-
ciples that play a role here are related to the questions
posed in the context of accrual of arguments (Prakken,
2005).
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 cur-
rently in use. For the same reason, we plan to im-
plement the argumentation framework for reasoning
about interest-based preferences that we have pre-
sented here. Another interesting question in this con-
text is how interest-based preferences can be elicited
from a human user.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Henry Prakken for useful comments on ear-
lier drafts of this paper. This research is supported by
the Dutch Technology Foundation STW, applied sci-
ence division of NWO and the Technology Program
of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. It is part of the
Pocket Negotiator project with grant number VICI-
project 08075.
REFERENCES
Amgoud, L., Bonnefon, J.-F., and Prade, H. (2005). An
argumentation-based approach to multiple criteria de-
cision. In Proc. ECSQARU, p. 269–280.
Amgoud, L. and Prade, H. (2009). Using arguments for
making and explaining decisions. Artif. Intell., 173(3-
4):413–436.
Bench-Capon, T. and Atkinson, K. (2009). Abstract argu-
mentation and values. In Rahwan, I. and Simari, G. R.,
editors, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, p.
45–64. Springer.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2003). Persuasion in practical ar-
gument using value based argumentation frameworks.
J. Logic Comput., 13(3):429–448.
Boutilier, C., Brafman, R. I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H. H.,
and Poole, D. (2004). CP-nets: A tool for representing
and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus prefer-
ence statements. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 21:135–191.
Brewka, G. (2004). A rank based description language for
qualitative preferences. In Proc. ECAI, p. 303–307.
Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments
and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning,
logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell.,
77:321–357.
Kaci, S. and van der Torre, L. (2008). Preference-based ar-
gumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values.
Int. J. of Approx. Reason., 48(3):730–751.
Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to
Creative Decisionmaking. Harvard University Press.
Keeney, R. L. and Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multi-
ple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cam-
bridge University Press.
Ouerdane, W., Maudet, N., and Tsouki
`
as, A. (2008). Argu-
ment schemes and critical questions for decision aid-
ing process. Proc. COMMA, p. 285–296.
Ouerdane, W., Maudet, N., and Tsouki
`
as, A. (2010). Argu-
mentation theory and decision aiding. In Ehrgott, M.,
Figueira, J. R., and Greco, S., editors, New Trends in
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. Springer.
Prakken, H. (2005). A study of accrual of arguments, with
applications to evidential reasoning. In Proc. ICAIL,
p. 85–94.
Rahwan, I., Pasquier, P., Sonenberg, L., and Dignum, F.
(2007). On the benefits of exploiting underlying goals
in argument-based negotiation. In Proc. AAAI, p. 116–
121.
Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (1997). Abstract argumentation sys-
tems. Artif. Intell., 90(1-2):225–279.
van der Weide, T., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J., Prakken, H.,
and Vreeswijk, G. (2009). Practical reasoning using
values: Giving meaning to values. In Proc. ArgMAS.
Wellman, M. P. and Doyle, J. (1991). Preferential semantics
for goals. In Proc. AAAI, p. 698–703.
von Wright, G. H. (1963). The Logic of Preference: An
Essay. Edinburgh University Press.
ICAART 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence
88