On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation

Judgment aggregation is a field in which individuals are required to vote for or against a certain decision (the conclusion) while providing reasons for their choice. The reasons and the conclusion are logically connected propositions. The problem is how a collective judgment on logically interconnected propositions can be defined from individual judgments on the same propositions. It turns out that, despite the fact that the individuals are logically consistent, the aggregation of their judgments may lead to an inconsistent group outcome, where the reasons do not support the conclusion. However, in this paper we claim that collective irrationality should not be the only worry of judgment aggregation. For example, judgment aggregation would not reject a consistent combination of reasons and conclusion that no member voted for. In our view this may not be a desirable solution. This motivates our research about when a social outcome is ‘compatible’ with the individuals’ judgments. The key notion that we want to capture is that any individual member has to be able to defend the collective decision. This is guaranteed when the group outcome is compatible with its members views. Judgment aggregation problems are usually studied using classical propositional logic. However, for our analysis we use an argumentation approach to judgment aggregation problems. Indeed the question of how individual evaluations can be combined into a collective one can also be addressed in abstract argumentation. We introduce three aggregation operators that satisfy the condition above, and we offer two definitions of compatibility. Not only does our proposal satisfy a good number of standard judgment aggregation postulates, but it also avoids the problem of individual members of a group having to become committed to a group judgment that is in conflict with their own individual positions.

[1]  Martin Caminada,et al.  On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation , 2006, JELIA.

[2]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[3]  Martin Caminada.  An Algorithm for Computing Semi-stable Semantics , 2007, ECSQARU.

[4]  P. Pettit.  When to defer to majority testimony - and when not , 2006 .

[5]  Michael J. Maher,et al.  Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic , 2004, J. Log. Comput..

[6]  Lawrence G. Sager,et al.  Unpacking the Court , 1986 .

[7]  Ron Holzman,et al.  Aggregation of binary evaluations with abstentions , 2010, J. Econ. Theory.

[8]  Ron Holzman,et al.  Aggregation of binary evaluations , 2010, J. Econ. Theory.

[9]  Gerard Vreeswijk.  An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems , 2006, COMMA.

[10]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Pareto Optimality in Abstract Argumentation , 2008, AAAI.

[11]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Aggregation of Attack Relations: A Social-Choice Theoretical Analysis of Defeasibility Criteria , 2008, FoIKS.

[12]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach , 2003, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[13]  Franz Dietrich,et al.  A generalised model of judgment aggregation , 2007, Soc. Choice Welf..

[14]  J. Pollock.  Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person , 1995 .

[15]  Ernest Sosa,et al.  The Epistemology of Disagreement , 2011 .

[16]  Dirk Vermeir,et al.  Robust Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks , 1999, J. Log. Comput..

[17]  J. Bohman,et al.  Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics , 1997 .

[18]  Lawrence G. Sager,et al.  The One and the Many: Adjudication in Collegial Courts , 1993 .

[19]  Marc Moffett.  Reasonable Disagreement and Rational Group Inquiry , 2008 .

[20]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On the merging of Dung's argumentation systems , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation in artificial intelligence , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[22]  Christian List,et al.  Aggregating Sets of Judgments: Two Impossibility Results Compared1 , 2004, Synthese.

[23]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On the Logic of Merging , 1998, KR.

[24]  Marc Pauly,et al.  Logical Constraints on Judgement Aggregation , 2006, J. Philos. Log..

[25]  Paolo Mancarella,et al.  Computing ideal sceptical argumentation , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[26]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Credulous and Sceptical Argument Games for Preferred Semantics , 2000, JELIA.

[27]  Christian List,et al.  Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation , 2005, Soc. Choice Welf..

[28]  C. List,et al.  Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result , 2002, Economics and Philosophy.

[29]  John F. Horty,et al.  Skepticism and floating conclusions , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[30]  Klaus Nehring,et al.  The structure of strategy-proof social choice - Part I: General characterization and possibility results on median spaces , 2007, J. Econ. Theory.

[31]  F. Dietrich,et al.  Judgment Aggregation By Quota Rules , 2007 .

[32]  K. Arrow,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[33]  David Coady.  When Experts Disagree , 2007 .

[34]  Martin Caminada,et al.  An argument game for stable semantics , 2009, Log. J. IGPL.

[35]  P. Gärdenfors.  A REPRESENTATION THEOREM FOR VOTING WITH LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES , 2006, Economics and Philosophy.

[36]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[37]  Bart Verheij,et al.  A Labeling Approach to the Computation of Credulous Acceptance in Argumentation , 2007, IJCAI.

[38]  Karl Schlechta,et al.  Floating Conclusions and Zombie Paths: Two Deep Difficulties in the "Directly Skeptical" Approach to Defeasible Inheritance Nets , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[39]  Klaus Nehring,et al.  The (Im)Possibility of a Paretian Rational , 2005 .

[40]  L. A. Goodman,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[41]  C. List,et al.  Judgment aggregation: A survey , 2009 .

[42]  Gabriella Pigozzi,et al.  Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation , 2006, Synthese.

[43]  Martin Wigbertus Antonius Caminada.  Comparing Two Unique Extension Semantics for Formal Argumentation : Ideal and Eager , 2007 .