Judgment Aggregation in Multi-Agent Argumentation

  title={Judgment Aggregation in Multi-Agent Argumentation},
  author={Edmond Awad and Richard Booth and Fernando A. Tohm{\'e} and Iyad Rahwan},
Given a set of conflicting arguments, there can exist multiple plausible opinions about which arguments should be accepted, rejected or deemed undecided. We study the problem of how multiple such judgements can be aggregated. We define the problem by adapting various classical social-choice-theoretic properties for the argumentation domain. We show that while argument-wise plurality voting satisfies many properties, it fails to guarantee the collective rationality of the outcome. We then… 

Pareto optimality and strategy-proofness in group argument evaluation

This paper analyzes three previously introduced argument-based aggregation operators with respect to Pareto optimality and strategy proofness under different general classes of agent preferences and highlights mental trade-offs between strategic manipulability and social optimality on one hand and classical logical criteria on the other.

Combining Social Choice Theory and Argumentation: Enabling Collective Decision Making

Argumentation-based debates are mechanisms that a group can use to resolve conflicting opinions and hence reach agreement. They have many potential applications in on-line communities and other open

Preventing Manipulation in Aggregating Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks

Recently, connections between abstract argumentation and decision making have gained increasing attention. In particular, value-based argumentation attempts to capture the specificity of deliberation

An Introductory Course to Judgment Aggregation

This tutorial will introduce the basic frameworks that model judgment aggregation problems and give an overview of the judgment aggregation functions so far developed as well as their social theoretic and computational complexity properties.

Guaranteeing Admissibility of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with Rationality and Feasibility Constraints

A model for extension aggregation is defined that clearly separates the constraint supposed to be satisfied by individuals and the constraint that must be met by the collective decision, and shows that the majority rule guarantees admissible sets on profiles that satisfy a variant of Dung’s admissibility.

Experimental Assessment of Aggregation Principles in Argumentation-Enabled Collective Intelligence

This work uses randomized controlled experiments to investigate which principles people consider better at aggregating opinions under different conditions and reveals a number of factors, not captured by traditional formal models, that play an important role in determining the efficacy of aggregation.

Merging of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

This paper adapt model-based propositional belief merging to define extension-based merging operators for AFs and state an axiomatic and a constructive characterization of merging operators through a family of rationality postulates and a representation theorem.

A Multi-agent Argumentation Framework to Support Collective Reasoning

This work introduces an argumentation framework to structure argumentative debates that represents the arguments issued by the participants involved in a debate, the relationships between them, as well as participants’ opinions on them, and designs an aggregation function that satisfies valuable social-choice properties.

Aggregation in Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks

Value-based argumentation enhances a classical abstract argumentation graph with labels on arguments, called values, and an ordering on values, called audience, to provide a more fine-grained justification of the attack relation.

The Smoothed Likelihood of Doctrinal Paradox

This paper characterize the likelihood of the doctrinal paradox under a general and realistic model called smoothed social choice framework introduced in a NeurIPS 2020 paper, and states that under mild conditions, the smoothed likelihood is either 0, exp(−Θ(n), Θ (n−1/2) or Θ(1), which answers open questions and draws clear lines between situations with frequent paradoxes and with vanishing paradoxes.



On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation

It is claimed that collective irrationality should not be the only worry of judgment aggregation, and three aggregation operators that satisfy the condition above are introduced, and two definitions of compatibility are offered.

Collective argument evaluation as judgement aggregation

This paper extensively analyse an argument-wise plurality voting rule, showing that it suffers a fundamental limitation and demonstrating, through a general impossibility result, that this limitation is more fundamentally rooted.

Mechanism design for abstract argumentation

(game-theoretic) argumentation mechanism design (ArgMD) is introduced, which enables the design and analysis of argumentation mechanisms for self-interested agents and proves that the strategy profile in which each agent reveals its arguments truthfully is a dominant strategy equilibrium.

Aggregation of Attack Relations: A Social-Choice Theoretical Analysis of Defeasibility Criteria

This paper analyzes the aggregation of different abstract attack relations over a common set of arguments. Each of those attack relations can be considered as the representation of a criterion of

Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks

It is shown that in a VAF certain arguments can be shown to be acceptable however the relative strengths of the values involved are assessed, which means that disputants can concur on the acceptance of arguments, even when they differ as to which values are more important, and hence that the possibility of persuasion should be possible.

Social Argument Justification: Some Mechanisms and Conditions for Their Coincidence

This paper considers different voting by quota mechanisms, and the aggregation mechanisms by decisive sets, to deal with the problem of aggregating different individual argumentation frameworks over a common set of arguments.

Quantifying disagreement in argument-based reasoning

The issue of how to define meaningful measures of distance between the (complete) labellings of a given argumentation framework is examined, and concrete distance measures based on argument-wise label difference, as well as based on the notion of critical sets are provided.

Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result

Suppose that the members of a certain group each hold a rational set of judgments on some interconnected questions. And imagine that the group itself now has to form a collective, rational set of

A generalised model of judgment aggregation

This methodological paper presents a simple unified model of judgment aggregation in general logics, and shows how many realistic decision problems can be represented in it and proves impossibility results that generalise earlier theorems.

Binary Aggregation with Integrity Constraints

The generality of this framework is explored, showing that it makes available useful techniques both to prove theoretical results and to analyse practical problems, such as the characterisation of safe agendas in judgment aggregation in a syntactic way.