Collective argument evaluation as judgement aggregation

cting knowledge base can be seen abstractly as a set of arguments and a binary relation characterising conflict among them. There may be multiple plausible ways to evaluate conflicting arguments. In this paper, we ask: given a set of agents, each with a legitimate subjective evaluation of a set of arguments, how can they reach a collective evaluation of those arguments? After formally defining this problem, we extensively analyse an argument-wise plurality voting rule, showing that it suffers a fundamental limitation. Then we demonstrate, through a general impossibility result, that this limitation is more fundamentally rooted. Finally, we show how this impossibility result can be circumvented by additional domain restrictions. Categories and Subject Descriptors I.2.11 [Artificial Intelligence]: Distributed Artificial Intelligence--multiagent systems, coherence and coordination General Terms Theory, Economics Keywords Argumentation, Social Choice, Judgement Aggregation

• Type: Conference
• Year: 2010
• Where: ATAL
• Authors: Iyad Rahwan, Fernando Tohmé
• Keywords: ATAL 2010, Intelligent Agents, Legitimate Subjective Evaluation, Multiple Plausible Ways, Relation Characterising Conflict