. Garbayo, L., Ceberio, M., Bistarelli, S., & Henderson, J. Volume 100. On modeling multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making argumentation and disagreement: Philosophical and computational approaches reconsidered, pages 67–75. Springer International Publishing, 2018. ![On modeling multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making argumentation and disagreement: Philosophical and computational approaches reconsidered [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex In this article we suggest that the research area of epistemology of disagreement should be critically applied to the problem of describing multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making (ME-MCDM), while providing an epistemic conceptualization of experts as epistemic peers. We explore some preliminary outcomes of using Dung’s computational framework for argumentation in ME-MCDM with conceptual considerations on the role of formal constraints and rationality approaches for epistemic peer disagreement, such as provided by David Christensen [2], inclusive of epistemic and pragmatic rationality, synchronic and diachronic rationality, and global and local aspects thereof
@inbook{
11391_1420696,
author = {Garbayo, Luciana and Ceberio, Martine and Bistarelli, Stefano and Henderson, Joel},
title = {On modeling multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making argumentation and disagreement: Philosophical and computational approaches reconsidered},
year = {2018},
publisher = {Springer International Publishing},
volume = {100},
booktitle = {Studies in Systems, Decision and Control},
abstract = {In this article we suggest that the research area of epistemology of disagreement should be critically applied to the problem of describing multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making (ME-MCDM), while providing an epistemic conceptualization of experts as epistemic peers. We explore some preliminary outcomes of using Dung’s computational framework for argumentation in ME-MCDM with conceptual considerations on the role of formal constraints and rationality approaches for epistemic peer disagreement, such as provided by David Christensen [2], inclusive of epistemic and pragmatic rationality, synchronic and diachronic rationality, and global and local aspects thereof},
url = {www.springer.com/series/13304},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-61753-4_10},
pages = {67--75}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"bqyBXK5J9wpA3PaXW","bibbaseid":"garbayo-ceberio-bistarelli-henderson-onmodelingmultiexpertsmulticriteriadecisionmakingargumentationanddisagreementphilosophicalandcomputationalapproachesreconsidered-2018","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2018-08-12T16:35:31.311Z","title":"On modeling multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making argumentation and disagreement: Philosophical and computational approaches reconsidered","author_short":["Garbayo, L.","Ceberio, M.","Bistarelli, S.","Henderson, J."],"year":2018,"bibtype":"inbook","biburl":"http://www.dmi.unipg.it/cybersecuritylab/temp_files/global.bib","bibdata":{"bibtype":"inbook","type":"inbook","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Garbayo"],"firstnames":["Luciana"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Ceberio"],"firstnames":["Martine"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Bistarelli"],"firstnames":["Stefano"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Henderson"],"firstnames":["Joel"],"suffixes":[]}],"title":"On modeling multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making argumentation and disagreement: Philosophical and computational approaches reconsidered","year":"2018","publisher":"Springer International Publishing","volume":"100","booktitle":"Studies in Systems, Decision and Control","abstract":"In this article we suggest that the research area of epistemology of disagreement should be critically applied to the problem of describing multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making (ME-MCDM), while providing an epistemic conceptualization of experts as epistemic peers. We explore some preliminary outcomes of using Dung’s computational framework for argumentation in ME-MCDM with conceptual considerations on the role of formal constraints and rationality approaches for epistemic peer disagreement, such as provided by David Christensen [2], inclusive of epistemic and pragmatic rationality, synchronic and diachronic rationality, and global and local aspects thereof","url":"www.springer.com/series/13304","doi":"10.1007/978-3-319-61753-4_10","pages":"67–75","bibtex":"@inbook{\n\t11391_1420696,\n\tauthor = {Garbayo, Luciana and Ceberio, Martine and Bistarelli, Stefano and Henderson, Joel},\n\ttitle = {On modeling multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making argumentation and disagreement: Philosophical and computational approaches reconsidered},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tpublisher = {Springer International Publishing},\n\tvolume = {100},\n\tbooktitle = {Studies in Systems, Decision and Control},\n\tabstract = {In this article we suggest that the research area of epistemology of disagreement should be critically applied to the problem of describing multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making (ME-MCDM), while providing an epistemic conceptualization of experts as epistemic peers. We explore some preliminary outcomes of using Dung’s computational framework for argumentation in ME-MCDM with conceptual considerations on the role of formal constraints and rationality approaches for epistemic peer disagreement, such as provided by David Christensen [2], inclusive of epistemic and pragmatic rationality, synchronic and diachronic rationality, and global and local aspects thereof},\n\turl = {www.springer.com/series/13304},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/978-3-319-61753-4_10},\t\n\tpages = {67--75}\n}\n","author_short":["Garbayo, L.","Ceberio, M.","Bistarelli, S.","Henderson, J."],"key":"11391_1420696","id":"11391_1420696","bibbaseid":"garbayo-ceberio-bistarelli-henderson-onmodelingmultiexpertsmulticriteriadecisionmakingargumentationanddisagreementphilosophicalandcomputationalapproachesreconsidered-2018","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://www.dmi.unipg.it/cybersecuritylab/temp_files/www.springer.com/series/13304"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{"bistarelli, s":"https://www.dmi.unipg.it/"}}},"search_terms":["modeling","multi","experts","multi","criteria","decision","making","argumentation","disagreement","philosophical","computational","approaches","reconsidered","garbayo","ceberio","bistarelli","henderson"],"keywords":[],"authorIDs":["5457089d8b01c8193000012f","5a8SaRQZEqQauLeSj","5dec2eeed39dc7de01000059","5defa628706001de01000155","5df0bf368367c8de0100014e","5df7a6a2f3cb28df0100013e","5df8c7c4e6b510df0100018c","5df8e4de877972de0100016c","5df99361c4ada8de01000018","5dfea9342331dfdf01000059","5e012b722e225bde01000053","5e0968c8ade67ddf01000043","5e0b068b3830a1df010000e1","5e10a884cfb06ddf0100002c","5e10fd55d6a01ede01000024","5e142e4b12768ef30100003c","5e1961659eca7cdf01000080","5e1a2ca69fbdddde010000ff","5e1f814208195af3010000a8","5e2b62d96366e2df010000e6","5e2b8ef4f92538df01000011","5e2d73a3556d50df01000041","5e30e7755f9c1cf2010000d7","5e35f2395cd57fde010000c7","5e3a22e3c268d2de01000108","5e3b007c55f0f2df0100011a","5e3e128b4cdb49de0100008a","5e4094bbd668c6de0100007c","5e40f782fd6934df01000169","5e413b68b7d170df01000092","5e42e16aa6f4a6f2010000d1","5e4eddeb2962cadf010000e9","5e54f08fb8e445df01000107","6rZ7TmdCqfG4dxRdT","Q5h43gs9oNpAm4KeK","Zw3hLXQ8Xyab4HobY"],"dataSources":["GhB5rb8JzW6az3exo"]}