Usually, in argumentation, the proof-standards that are used are fixed a priori by the procedure. However (multicriteria) decision-aiding is a context where it may be modified dynamically during the process, depending on the responses of the decision-maker. The expert indeed needs to adapt and refine its choice of an appropriate method of aggregating arguments pros and cons, so that it fits the preference model inferred from the interaction. In this short paper we introduce how this aspect can be handled in an argumentation-based decision-aiding framework. The first contribution of the paper is conceptual: the notion of a concept lattice based on simple properties and allowing to navigate among the different proof-standards is put forward. We then show how this can be integrated within the Carneades model.
展开▼
