Abstract
Argumentative debates are a powerful tool for resolving conflicts and reaching agreements in open environments such as on-line communities. Here we introduce an argumentation framework to structure argumentative debates. Our framework represents the arguments issued by the participants involved in a debate, the (attack and defence) relationships between them, as well as participants’ opinions on them. Furthermore, we tackle the problem of computing a collective decision from participants’ opinions. With this aim, we design an aggregation function that satisfies valuable social-choice properties.
Funded by Collectiveware TIN2015-66863-C2-1-R (MINECO/FEDER) and 2014 SGR 118.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Nevertheless, there are notable differences with bipolar argumentation frameworks. First, bipolar argumentation does not consider labellings (different opinions on arguments), nor their aggregation. Second, bipolar argumentation focuses on studying the structure between arguments and groups of arguments, whereas we focus on computing a collective decision from differing opinions about arguments. Third, arguments in bipolar argumentation can be regarded as objective facts, while in our case, arguments can be subjective facts on which individuals can differ. Thus, our argumentation framework is less restrictive to include humans in the loop.
- 2.
A complete labelling requires that: an argument is labelled in iff all its defeaters are labelled out; and an argument is labelled out iff at least one of its defeaters is accepted.
References
City of Barcelona participation portal (2016). https://decidim.barcelona
City of Reykjavík participation portal (2016). http://reykjavik.is/en/participation
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Livet, P.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23(10), 1062–1093 (2008)
Awad, E., Booth, R., Tohmé, F., Rahwan, I.: Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentation. J. Logic Comput. 27(1), 227–259 (2017)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 619–641 (2007)
Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11853886_11
Caminada, M.W.A., Dov, M.G.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Studia Logica 93(2–3), 109–145 (2009)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.1007/11518655_33
Dietrich, F.: A generalised model of judgment aggregation. Soc. Choice Welfare 28(4), 529–565 (2007)
Gabbriellini, S., Torroni, P.: Microdebates: structuring debates without a structuring tool1. AI Commun. 29(1), 31–51 (2015)
Kahn, A.B.: Topological sorting of large networks. Commun. ACM 5(11), 558–562 (1962)
Klein, M.: Enabling large-scale deliberation using attention-mediation metrics. Comput. Support. Coop. Work (CSCW) 21(4–5), 449–473 (2012)
Klein, M., Convertino, G.: A roadmap for open innovation systems. J. Soc. Media Organ. 2(1), 1 (2015)
List, C., Pettit, P.: Aggregating sets of judgments: an impossibility result. Econ. Philos. 18(01), 89–110 (2002)
Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R., Benthem, J.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 47. Springer, USA (2009)
Weerakkody, V., Reddick, C.G.: Public sector transformation through e-government: experiences from Europe and North America. Routledge (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ganzer-Ripoll, J., López-Sánchez, M., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J.A. (2017). A Multi-agent Argumentation Framework to Support Collective Reasoning. In: Aydoğan, R., Baarslag, T., Gerding, E., Jonker, C., Julian, V., Sanchez-Anguix, V. (eds) Conflict Resolution in Decision Making. COREDEMA 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10238. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57285-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57285-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57284-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-57285-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)