Argumentation-Based Information Exchange in Prediction Markets

  • Santi Ontañón
  • Enric Plaza
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5384)


The purpose of this paper is to investigate how argumentation processes among a group of agents may affect the outcome of group judgments. In particular we will focus on prediction markets (also called information markets) and we will investigate how the existence of social networks (that allow agents to argue with one another to improve their individual predictions) effect on group judgments. Social networks allow agents to exchange information about the group judgment by arguing about the most likely choice based on their individual experience. We develop an argumentation-based deliberation process by which the agents acquire new and relevant information. Finally, we experimentally assess how different social network connectivity and different data distribution affect group judgment.


Information Exchange Multiagent System Majority Vote Individual Prediction Prediction Market 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aamodt, A., Plaza, E.: Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. Artificial Intelligence Communications 7(1), 39–59 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aleven, V.: Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    List, C., Pettit, P.: Aggregating sets of judgments: Two impossibility results compared. Synthese 140, 207–235 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Armengol, E., Plaza, E.: Lazy induction of descriptions for relational case-based learning. In: Flach, P.A., De Raedt, L. (eds.) ECML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2167, pp. 13–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ashley, K.: Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in hypo. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34, 753–796 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chesñevar, C.I., Mguitman, A., Loui, R.: Logical models or argument. Computing Surveys 32(4), 336–383 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R.: Formalizing Defeasible Argumentation using Labelled Deductive Systems. Journal of Computer Science & Technology 1(4), 18–33 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., Lang, J., Maudet, N.: A short introduction to computational social choice. In: van Leeuwen, J., Italiano, G.F., van der Hoek, W., Meinel, C., Sack, H., Plášil, F. (eds.) SOFSEM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4362, pp. 51–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dietterich, T.G.: Ensemble methods in machine learning. In: Kittler, J., Roli, F. (eds.) MCS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1857, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lang, J.: Logical preference representation and combinatorial vote. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 42, 37–71 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ontañón, S., Plaza, E.: Justification-based multiagent learning. In: ICML 2003, pp. 576–583. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ontañón, S., Plaza, E.: Case-based learning from proactive communication. In: Proc. 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), pp. 999–1004. IJCAI Press (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ontañón, S., Plaza, E.: Learning and joint deliberation through argumentation in multi-agent systems. In: Proc. AAMAS 2007, pp. 971–978. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Poole, D.: On the comparison of theories: Preferring the most specific explanation. In: IJCAI 1985, pp. 144–147 (1985)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rodriguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sousa, P.: Issues in multiagent resource allocation. Informatica 30, 3–31 (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jennings, N.R., Parsons, S., Sierra, C.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 261–292 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sunstein, C.R.: Group judgments: Deliberation, statistical means, and information markets. New York University Law Review 80, 962–1049 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Santi Ontañón
    • 1
  • Enric Plaza
    • 2
  1. 1.CCL, Cognitive Computing LabGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.IIIA, Artificial Intelligence Research Institute - CSIC, Spanish Council for Scientific ResearchBellaterraSpain

Personalised recommendations