Computer decision-support systems for public argumentation: assessing deliberative legitimacy

Recent proposals for computer-assisted argumentation have drawn on dialectical models of argumentation. When used to assist public policy planning, such systems also raise questions of political legitimacy. Drawing on deliberative democratic theory, we elaborate normative criteria for deliberative legitimacy and illustrate their use for assessing two argumentation systems. Full assessment of such systems requires experiments in which system designers draw on expertise from the social sciences and enter into the policy deliberation itself at the level of participants.

JUDGES: A descriptive group decision support system for the ranking of items

A set of tools for group decision support are presented. Decision problems involving several decision makers, here-after called judges, that have to rank several alternatives, are considered. The toolbox is called JUDGES. It includes the four following procedures:

• - a hierarchical representation of the judges allows to display the existing conflicts between groups of judges,

• - enhanced box-plots representations of the alternatives are generated in order to detect those that are responsible for the major conflicts,

• - specific advice is issued to each judge in order to reach more easily a consensus,

• - a general framework for a pairwise group preference structure is proposed, and can be used to finalise the decision.

These procedures are embedded in an interactive software, implemented on micro-computer, which currently simulates the use on a network. Actual network implementation is foreseen in the near future. Several applications are presented and future developments are discussed.

A consistency and consensus based decision support model for group decision making with multiplicative preference relations

In group decision making (GDM) with multiplicative preference relations (also known as pairwise comparison matrices in the Analytical Hierarchy Process), to come to a meaningful and reliable solution, it is preferable to consider individual consistency and group consensus in the decision process. This paper provides a decision support model to aid the group consensus process while keeping an acceptable individual consistency for each decision maker. The concept of an individual consistency index and a group consensus index is introduced based on the Hadamard product of two matrices. Two algorithms are presented in the designed support model. The first algorithm is utilized to convert an unacceptable preference relation to an acceptable one. The second algorithm is designed to assist the group in achieving a predefined consensus level. The main characteristics of our model are that: (1) it is independent of the prioritization method used in the consensus process; (2) it ensures that each individual multiplicative preference relation is of acceptable consistency when the predefined consensus level is achieved. Finally, some numerical examples are given to verify the effectiveness of our model.     

A metalanguage design for sessions with group decision support systems

This paper proposes a metalanguage for representing communication among participants in a session of a group decision support system (GDSS). Such a vehicle can be used for setting standards and designing specific user interfaces with GDSS.Three different roles of participants are identified: chairperson, chauffeur and regular participant. The tasks and activities of each role are analyzed. Based on the analysis, communications requirements are derived. The requirements lead to a design of a metalanguage consisting of 15 different commands. The paper concludes by displaying the structure and syntax of each command.The work described here is conceptual and could be considered as a proposal for GDSS language design.     

A view of group decision making process and bivoting approach

Many characteristics of Group Decision Making (GDM) are different from those of individual decision. The literature dealing with the stages of GDM is rather scant. This paper presents a view about the stages of group decision processes, characterizing GDM as a dynamic process. We discuss particularly the aggregation stage of preferences and reports a bivoting approach' used in practising group decision support systems (GDSS). Finally, a concrete example is given to illustrate each stage of group decision process and tile 'bivoting approach' in consensus reaching stage.     

Robust ordinal regression for multiple criteria group decision: UTA-GROUP and UTADIS-GROUP

We introduce the principle of robust ordinal regression to multiple criteria group decision, and we present two new methods using a set of additive value functions as a preference model, called UTA^GMS-GROUP and UTADIS^GMS-GROUP. With respect to the set of decision makers (DMs), we consider two levels of certainty for the results. The first level is related to the necessary or possible consequences of indirect preference information provided by each DM, whereas the other refers to the subset of DMs agreeing for a specific outcome. In this way, we investigate spaces of consensus and disagreement between the DMs. The proposed methods are illustrated by examples showing how they can support real-world group decision.     

Analytic hierarchy process: It can work for group decision support systems

Most group problems are complex and unstructured and are difficult to find solutions, GDSS, systems for group decision making support, have more concentrated on the development of technological factor such as communication support, electronic meeting support, etc. And there have been relatively few researches about group problem modeling and group decision-aid. We cannot guarantee the value of GDSS just with the support in technological basis. The AHP has been suggested as an group problem modeling tool. In this paper authors applied AHP in real world group problems, investigated its value. and suggested the elements of GDSS software.     

A distance-based group decision-making methodology for multi-person multi-criteria emergency decision support

In this paper, a distance-based group decision-making (GDM) methodology is proposed to solve unconventional multi-person multi-criteria emergency decision-making problems. In this model, some decision-makers are first identified to formulate a group decision-making framework. Then a standard multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) process is performed on specific decision-making problems and different decision results are obtained from different decision-makers. Finally, these different decision results are aggregated into a group consensus to support the final decision-making. For illustration and verification purposes, a numerical example and a practical unconventional emergency decision case are presented. Experimental results obtained demonstrate that the proposed distance-based multi-criteria GDM methodology can improve decision-making objectivity and emergency management effectiveness.     

Multiple criteria decision making and decision support systems — Guest editor's introduction

Integration of MCDM with DSS brings benefit to both fields. MCDM tools are useful in identifying and evaluating incompatible alternatives for DSS, while DSS can implement MCDM approaches and help maintain and retrieve MCDM models. Over the years, MCDM has made considerable contribution to the development of various DSS subspecialties. This special issue on Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Decision Support Systems consists of 9 selected papers from the 20th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making. The guest editors highlight the key ideas and contributions of the papers in the special issue.     

Effects of GSS interface and task type on group interaction: An empirical study

The effects of GSS interface and task type on group interaction are examined in this experimental study. A 2 × 2 factorial design is employed. Each treatment has eight groups. Two types of GSS interfaces are studied: icon-based and text-based. Two task types are investigated: intellective and preference. Three dependent variables are measured: efficiency of influence attempts, inequality of influence attempts, and dominance significance. Results of data analysis show that groups using icon-based interface achieve greater efficiency of influence attempts, greater equality of influence attempts, and less dominance significance than groups using text-based interface. Moreover, equality of influence attempts is greater for preference task groups than intellective task groups. These results suggest that an icon-based interface is a useful feature of a GSS, particularly when group members are novice computer users. GSS developers should, therefore, pay attention to interface design on top of the considerations for other GSS features.     

A decision support system for the planning of the workload on a grain terminal

Ships, loaded with agricultural products, are handled by GEM at three different terminals in the port of Rotterdam. Each terminal consists of several berths and has both floating equipment and shore equipment. This paper describes the terminal system, the planning process and a menu driven computer planning model of the system. The planning model is split up into a first phase, in which berths are allocated, and a second phase, in which unloading equipment is assigned. The user of the model has the opportunity to manipulate several penalties and assign preferences to berths.     

Anonymous mechanisms in group decision support systems communication

Using group decision support systems (GDSS) as a backdrop, this paper looks at the issues surrounding anonymity, with particular emphasis on how it may be achieved. Ensuring anonymity requires more than simple encryption. Anonymity is viewed as a composite of three types of anonymity—environmental, content-based and procedural. Each type is investigated and procedures developed to improve the anonymity of the system. Behavioral and operational costs are identified for each of the three types of anonymity. For some meetings, the benefits of supporting anonymous communication may not justify the costs. Mechanisms providing complete procedural anonymity in various system configurations are presented. It is shown that five separate mechanisms can be used to provide procedural anonymity. The impact of relaxing each of these mechanisms is also investigated. Even though a system provides anonymity, participants may be skeptical. This skepticism can reduce the overall efficiency of the group. For this reason it is important to be able to convince groups that their comments are indeed anonymous. The issue of how to convince individuals that their anonymity is secure is discussed and a partial solution to this problem is presented.     

A new generation of decision support systems for advanced manufacturing enterprises

The characteristics and environment of advanced manufacturing enterprises are analysed. A process model is briefly proposed to formulate the structured, semistructured, and unstructured decision problems. A framework for a decision support system is proposed that is capable of coordinating with the hybrid models and targeted to build an open system which can be self-organized to respond to a changing and unpredictable environment. Belief network and object-oriented technology are employed to help the system reason and reconfigure itself.     

Mass argumentation and the semantic web

The World Wide Web (WWW) can be seen as an ideal platform for enhancing argumentative expression and communication, due to its ubiquity and openness. Much argumentation takes place on personal blogs and on unstructured or semi-structured discussion forums. Recently, an increasing number of Web 2.0 applications provide specific support for large-scale socially-contributed argumentative content. When compared with traditional methods of Web discourse, these tools enable better visualisation, navigation and analysis of the ‘state of the debate’ by participants and, potentially, by automated tools. In this paper, I outline some potential benefits of Semantic Web techniques in supporting mass-scale, socially-contributed argument tagging. I also present some recent research in this direction.     

Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation

The present paper discusses experimental argument assistance tools. In contrast with automated reasoning tools, the objective is not to replace reasoning, but to guide the user's production of arguments. Two systems are presented, and based on . The focus is on defeasible argumentation with an eye on the law. Argument assistants for defeasible argumentation naturally correspond to a view of the application of law as dialectical theory construction. The experiments provide insights into the design of argument assistants, and show the pros and cons of different ways of representing argumentative data. The development of the argumentation theories underlying the systems has culminated in the logical system that formalizes the interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. introduces an innovative use of conditionals expressing support and attack. This allows the expression of warrants for support and attack, making it a transparent and flexible system of defeasible argumentation.     

Representing and applying knowledge for argumentation in a social context

The concept of argumentation in AI is based almost exclusively on the use of formal, abstract representations. Despite their appealing computational properties, these abstractions become increasingly divorced from their real world counterparts, and, crucially, lose the ability to express the rich gamut of natural argument forms required for creating effective text. In this paper, the demands that socially situated argumentation places on knowledge representation are explored, and the various problems with existing formalisations are discussed. Insights from argumentation theory and social psychology are then adduced as key contributions to a notion of social context which is both computationally tractable and suitably expressive for handling the complexities of argumentation found in natural language.