Argumentation-Based Information Exchange in Prediction Markets
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.
KeywordsInformation Exchange Multiagent System Majority Vote Individual Prediction Prediction Market
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.Aleven, V.: Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh (1997)Google Scholar
- 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
- 11.Ontañón, S., Plaza, E.: Justification-based multiagent learning. In: ICML 2003, pp. 576–583. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
- 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.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.Poole, D.: On the comparison of theories: Preferring the most specific explanation. In: IJCAI 1985, pp. 144–147 (1985)Google Scholar
- 17.Sunstein, C.R.: Group judgments: Deliberation, statistical means, and information markets. New York University Law Review 80, 962–1049 (2005)Google Scholar