Judgment Aggregation in Multi-Agent Argumentation
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 judgments 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, and struggles with ties. We then present more general results, proving multiple impossibility results on the existence of any good aggregation operator. After characterising 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 listing graph-theoretic restrictions under which argument-wise plurality rule does produce collectively rational outcomes. In addition to identifying fundamental barriers to collective argument evaluation, our results open up the door for a new research agenda for the argumentation and computational social choice communities.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks
We introduce Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks (FAFs), a novel argumentation-based methodology for forecasting informed by recent judgmental forecasting research. FAFs comprise update frameworks which empower (human o…
Aggregation in Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks
Value-based argumentation enhances a classical abstract argumentation graph - in which arguments are modelled as nodes connected by directed arrows called attacks - with labels on arguments, called values, and an orderin…
Abstract ArgumentationRetrieval- and Argumentation-Enhanced Multi-Agent LLMs for Judgmental Forecasting (Extended Version with Supplementary Material)
Judgmental forecasting is the task of making predictions about future events based on human judgment. This task can be seen as a form of claim verification, where the claim corresponds to a future event and the task is t…
Argument MiningPreservation of Semantic Properties during the Aggregation of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
An abstract argumentation framework can be used to model the argumentative stance of an agent at a high level of abstraction, by indicating for every pair of arguments that is being considered in a debate whether the fir…
Abstract ArgumentationARGORA: Orchestrated Argumentation for Causally Grounded LLM Reasoning and Decision Making
Existing multi-expert LLM systems gather diverse perspectives but combine them through simple aggregation, obscuring which arguments drove the final decision. We introduce ARGORA, a framework that organizes multi-expert …
Decision Making