Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentation
- Autores
- Awad, Edmond; Booth, Richard; Tohmé, Fernando Abel; Rahwan, Iyad
- Año de publicación
- 2017
- Idioma
- inglés
- Tipo de recurso
- artículo
- Estado
- versión publicada
- Descripción
- 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 present more general results, proving multiple impossibility results on the existence of any good aggregation operator. After characterizing the sufficient and necessary conditions for satisfying collective rationality, we study whether restricting the domain of argument-wise plurality voting to classical semantics allows us to escape the impossibility result. We close by mentioning a couple of graph-theoretical restrictions under which the argument-wise plurality rule does produce collectively rational outcomes. In addition to identifying fundamental barriers to collective argument evaluation, our results contribute to research at the intersection of the argumentation and computational social choice fields.
Fil: Awad, Edmond. Khalifa University Of Science And Technology; Emiratos Arabes Unidos
Fil: Booth, Richard. Mahasarakham University; Tailandia
Fil: Tohmé, Fernando Abel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; Argentina
Fil: Rahwan, Iyad. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Estados Unidos. Khalifa University Of Science And Technology; Emiratos Arabes Unidos - Materia
-
Agents
Argumentation
Preferences
Social Choice - Nivel de accesibilidad
- acceso abierto
- Condiciones de uso
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
- Repositorio
- Institución
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- OAI Identificador
- oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/62080
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
id |
CONICETDig_c596ec4ee5d79f187b71e1ca9d88832c |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/62080 |
network_acronym_str |
CONICETDig |
repository_id_str |
3498 |
network_name_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
spelling |
Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentationAwad, EdmondBooth, RichardTohmé, Fernando AbelRahwan, IyadAgentsArgumentationPreferencesSocial Choicehttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.2https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Given 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 present more general results, proving multiple impossibility results on the existence of any good aggregation operator. After characterizing the sufficient and necessary conditions for satisfying collective rationality, we study whether restricting the domain of argument-wise plurality voting to classical semantics allows us to escape the impossibility result. We close by mentioning a couple of graph-theoretical restrictions under which the argument-wise plurality rule does produce collectively rational outcomes. In addition to identifying fundamental barriers to collective argument evaluation, our results contribute to research at the intersection of the argumentation and computational social choice fields.Fil: Awad, Edmond. Khalifa University Of Science And Technology; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Booth, Richard. Mahasarakham University; TailandiaFil: Tohmé, Fernando Abel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; ArgentinaFil: Rahwan, Iyad. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Estados Unidos. Khalifa University Of Science And Technology; Emiratos Arabes UnidosOxford University Press2017-02info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/62080Awad, Edmond; Booth, Richard; Tohmé, Fernando Abel; Rahwan, Iyad; Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentation; Oxford University Press; Journal of Logic and Computation; 27; 1; 2-2017; 227-2590955-792XCONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1093/logcom/exv055info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://academic.oup.com/logcom/article-abstract/27/1/227/2917830?redirectedFrom=fulltextinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T09:36:30Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/62080instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 09:36:31.262CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentation |
title |
Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentation |
spellingShingle |
Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentation Awad, Edmond Agents Argumentation Preferences Social Choice |
title_short |
Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentation |
title_full |
Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentation |
title_fullStr |
Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentation |
title_full_unstemmed |
Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentation |
title_sort |
Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentation |
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Awad, Edmond Booth, Richard Tohmé, Fernando Abel Rahwan, Iyad |
author |
Awad, Edmond |
author_facet |
Awad, Edmond Booth, Richard Tohmé, Fernando Abel Rahwan, Iyad |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Booth, Richard Tohmé, Fernando Abel Rahwan, Iyad |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
Agents Argumentation Preferences Social Choice |
topic |
Agents Argumentation Preferences Social Choice |
purl_subject.fl_str_mv |
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.2 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1 |
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv |
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 present more general results, proving multiple impossibility results on the existence of any good aggregation operator. After characterizing the sufficient and necessary conditions for satisfying collective rationality, we study whether restricting the domain of argument-wise plurality voting to classical semantics allows us to escape the impossibility result. We close by mentioning a couple of graph-theoretical restrictions under which the argument-wise plurality rule does produce collectively rational outcomes. In addition to identifying fundamental barriers to collective argument evaluation, our results contribute to research at the intersection of the argumentation and computational social choice fields. Fil: Awad, Edmond. Khalifa University Of Science And Technology; Emiratos Arabes Unidos Fil: Booth, Richard. Mahasarakham University; Tailandia Fil: Tohmé, Fernando Abel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; Argentina Fil: Rahwan, Iyad. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Estados Unidos. Khalifa University Of Science And Technology; Emiratos Arabes Unidos |
description |
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 present more general results, proving multiple impossibility results on the existence of any good aggregation operator. After characterizing the sufficient and necessary conditions for satisfying collective rationality, we study whether restricting the domain of argument-wise plurality voting to classical semantics allows us to escape the impossibility result. We close by mentioning a couple of graph-theoretical restrictions under which the argument-wise plurality rule does produce collectively rational outcomes. In addition to identifying fundamental barriers to collective argument evaluation, our results contribute to research at the intersection of the argumentation and computational social choice fields. |
publishDate |
2017 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2017-02 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/62080 Awad, Edmond; Booth, Richard; Tohmé, Fernando Abel; Rahwan, Iyad; Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentation; Oxford University Press; Journal of Logic and Computation; 27; 1; 2-2017; 227-259 0955-792X CONICET Digital CONICET |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/62080 |
identifier_str_mv |
Awad, Edmond; Booth, Richard; Tohmé, Fernando Abel; Rahwan, Iyad; Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentation; Oxford University Press; Journal of Logic and Computation; 27; 1; 2-2017; 227-259 0955-792X CONICET Digital CONICET |
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1093/logcom/exv055 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://academic.oup.com/logcom/article-abstract/27/1/227/2917830?redirectedFrom=fulltext |
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/ |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/ |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Oxford University Press |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Oxford University Press |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET) instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
reponame_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
collection |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
instname_str |
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar |
_version_ |
1844613146342326272 |
score |
13.070432 |