Advertisement

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 64–102 | Cite as

On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation

  • Martin Caminada
  • Gabriella Pigozzi
Article

Abstract

Judgment aggregation is a field in which individuals are required to vote for or against a certain decision (the conclusion) while providing reasons for their choice. The reasons and the conclusion are logically connected propositions. The problem is how a collective judgment on logically interconnected propositions can be defined from individual judgments on the same propositions. It turns out that, despite the fact that the individuals are logically consistent, the aggregation of their judgments may lead to an inconsistent group outcome, where the reasons do not support the conclusion. However, in this paper we claim that collective irrationality should not be the only worry of judgment aggregation. For example, judgment aggregation would not reject a consistent combination of reasons and conclusion that no member voted for. In our view this may not be a desirable solution. This motivates our research about when a social outcome is ‘compatible’ with the individuals’ judgments. The key notion that we want to capture is that any individual member has to be able to defend the collective decision. This is guaranteed when the group outcome is compatible with its members views. Judgment aggregation problems are usually studied using classical propositional logic. However, for our analysis we use an argumentation approach to judgment aggregation problems. Indeed the question of how individual evaluations can be combined into a collective one can also be addressed in abstract argumentation. We introduce three aggregation operators that satisfy the condition above, and we offer two definitions of compatibility. Not only does our proposal satisfy a good number of standard judgment aggregation postulates, but it also avoids the problem of individual members of a group having to become committed to a group judgment that is in conflict with their own individual positions.

Keywords

Judgment aggregation Discursive dilemma Argumentation Group decision making 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arrow, K. (1963). Social choice and individual values. Cowles Foundation Monograph Series.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caminada, M. W. A. (2006). On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In M. Fischer, W. van der Hoek, B. Konev, & A. Lisitsa (Eds.), Logics in artificial intelligence; 10th European conference, JELIA 2006, (pp. 111–123). Springer. LNAI 4160.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caminada, M. W. A. (2007). An algorithm for computing semi-stable semantics. In Proceedings of the 9th European conference on symbolic and quantitalive approaches to reasoning with uncertainty (ECSQARU 2007), (pp. 222–234), number 4724 in Springer Lecture Notes in AI, Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caminada, M. W. A. (2007). Comparing two unique extension semantics for formal argumentation: ideal and eager. In M. Mehdi Dastani & E. de Jong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Belgian–Dutch conference on artificial intelligence (BNAIC 2007), (pp. 81–87).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caminada M. W. A., Wu Y. (2009) An argument game of stable semantics. Logic Journal of IGPL 17(1): 77–90zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coady D. (2006) When experts disagree. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 3(1): 68–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coste-Marquis S., Devred C., Konieczny S., Lagasquie-Schiex M.-C., Marquis P. (2007) On the merging of dung’s argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 730–753zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dietrich F. (2007) A generalized model of judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 28(4): 529–565zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dietrich F., List C. (2007) Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 29(1): 19–33zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dietrich F., List C. (2007) Judgment aggregation by quota rules: Majority voting generalized. Journal of Theoretical Politics 19(4): 391–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dokow, E., & Holzman, R.(2005). Aggregation of binary evaluations. Working paper—Technion Israel University of Technology.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dokow, E., & Holzman, R. (2007). Aggregation of binary evaluations with abstentions. Working paper.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dung P. M. (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321–357zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dung P. M., Mancarella P., Toni F. (2007) Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15): 642–674zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Estlund D. (1997) Beyond fairness and deliberation: The epistemic dimension of democratic authority. In: William R., James B. (eds) Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 173–204Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    García A. J., Simari G. R. (2004) Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1): 95–138zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gärdenfors P. (2006) A representation theorem for voting with logical consequences. Economics and Philosophy 22: 181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Governatori G., Maher M. J., Antoniou G., Billington D. (2004) Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(5): 675–702zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horty J. (2002) Skepticism and floating conclusions. Artificial Intelligence 135: 55–72zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jakobovits H., Vermeir D. (1999) Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of logic and computation 9(2): 215–261zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Konieczny, S., & Pino Perez, R. (1998). On the logic of merging. In Proceedings of KR’98 (pp. 488–498).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kornhauser L. A., Sager L. G. (1986) Unpacking the court. Yale Law Journal 96: 82–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kornhauser L. A., Sager L. G. (1993) The one and the many: Adjudication in collegial courts. California Law Review 81: 1–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    List C., Pettit P. (2002) Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy 18: 89–110Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    List C., Pettit P. (2004) Aggregating sets of judgments: Two impossibility results compared. Synthese 140(1–2): 207–235CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    List, C., & Puppe, C. (2009). Judgment aggregation: A survey. In P. Anand, C. Puppe, & P. Pattanaik (Eds.), Oxford handbook of rational and social choice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Makinson D. M., Schlechta K. (1991) Floating conclusions and zombie paths: Two deep difficulties in the “directly sceptical” approach to defeasible inheritance nets. Artificial Intelligence 48: 199–209zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Modgil S., Caminada M (2009) Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Rahwan I., Simari G. R. (eds) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 105–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moffett M. A. (2007) Reasonable disagreement and rational group inquiry. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 4: 352–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nehring, K. (2005). The (im)possibility of a Paretian rational. Economics working papers, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nehring K., Puppe C. (2007) The structure of strategy-proof social choice. part i: General characterization and possibility results on median spaces. Journal of Economic Theory 135: 269–305zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pauly M., van Hees M. (2006) Logical constraints on judgment aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35: 569–585zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pettit P. (2006) When to defer to majority testimony—and when not. Analysis 66(3): 179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pigozzi G. (2006) Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: An argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation. Synthese 152(2): 285–298zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pollock J. L. (1995) Cognitive carpentry. A blueprint for how to build a person. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rahwan, I., & Larson, K. (2008). Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In D. Fox & C. P. Gomes (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-third AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI 2008, Chicago, IL, USA, July 13–17, 2008 (pp. 150–155). AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sosa, E. (2007). The epistemology of disagreement (unpublished).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tohmé, F. A., Bodanza, G. A., & Simari, G. R. (2008). Aggregation of attack relations: A social-choice theoretical analysis of defeasibility criteria. In S. Hartmann & G. Kern-Isberner (Eds.), Proceedings of foundations of information and knowledge systems, FoIKS 2008 (pp. 8–23), Italy: Pisa.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Verheij, B. (2007). A labeling approach to the computation of credulous acceptance in argumentation. In M. M. Veloso (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Hyderabad, India (pp. 623–628).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vreeswijk, G. A. W., & Prakken, H. (2000). Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In Proceedings of the 7th European workshop on logic for artificial intelligence (JELIA-00), number 1919 in Springer Lecture Notes in AI (pp. 239–253), Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2006). An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems. In P. E. Dunne & T. J. M. Bench-Capon (Eds.), Computational models of argument; proceedings of COMMA 2006 (pp. 109–120). IOS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Individual and Collective Reasoning, Computer Science and CommunicationUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourg CityLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations