Using argumentation in expert’s debate to analyze multi-criteria group decision making method results

Abstract

Recent multi-criteria group decision making methods focus their analysis on the experts preferences. They do not take into account the reasons why each expert has provided a specific set of preferences. In this paper, a method that introduces novel measures capable of explaining the reasons behind experts decisions is presented. A novel concept, the arguments are presented. They represent the experts have for maintaining a certain position in the debate. Several measures related to the arguments are proposed. These new argumentation measures, along with consensus measures, help us to get a clear idea about how and why a specific resolution has been reached. They help us to determine which is the most influential expert, that is, the expert whose contributions to the debate have inspired the rest. Also, the proposed method allows us to determine which are the arguments that most of the experts have followed. A clear overview about how the debate is evolving in terms of arguments is also provided. The novel presented analysis indicate how the experts change their opinions in every round and what was the reason for it, which changes have occurred between rounds and they also provide global analysis results.