On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 64-102

  Caminada, Martin ^a   Pigozzi, Gabriella ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LUXEMBOURG   (Luxembourg)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Discursive dilemma; Group decision making; Judgment aggregation

Indexed keywords

FORMAL LOGIC; MATHEMATICAL OPERATORS;

ABSTRACT ARGUMENTATION; AGGREGATION OPERATOR; ARGUMENTATION; CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC; COLLECTIVE DECISION; DISCURSIVE DILEMMA; GROUP DECISION MAKING; SOCIAL OUTCOMES;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 78651237458     PISSN: 13872532     EISSN: 15737454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10458-009-9116-7     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Arrow, K. (1963). Social choice and individual values. Cowles Foundation Monograph Series.
2. Caminada, M. W. A. (2006). On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In M. Fischer, W. van der Hoek, B. Konev, & A. Lisitsa (Eds.), Logics in artificial intelligence; 10th European conference, JELIA 2006, (pp. 111-123). Springer. LNAI 4160.
3. Caminada, M. W. A. (2007). An algorithm for computing semi-stable semantics. In Proceedings of the 9th European conference on symbolic and quantitalive approaches to reasoning with uncertainty (ECSQARU 2007), (pp. 222-234), number 4724 in Springer Lecture Notes in AI, Berlin: Springer Verlag.
4. Caminada, M. W. A. (2007). Comparing two unique extension semantics for formal argumentation: ideal and eager. In M. Mehdi Dastani & E. de Jong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Belgian-Dutch conference on artificial intelligence (BNAIC 2007), (pp. 81-87).
5. Caminada M. W. A., Wu Y. (2009) An argument game of stable semantics. Logic Journal of IGPL 17(1): 77-90.
6. Coady D. (2006) When experts disagree. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 3(1): 68-79.
7. Coste-Marquis S., Devred C., Konieczny S., Lagasquie-Schiex M.-C., Marquis P. (2007) On the merging of dung's argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15): 730-753.
8. Dietrich F. (2007) A generalized model of judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 28(4): 529-565.
9. Dietrich F., List C. (2007) Arrow's theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 29(1): 19-33.
10. Dietrich F., List C. (2007) Judgment aggregation by quota rules: Majority voting generalized. Journal of Theoretical Politics 19(4): 391-424.
11. Dokow, E., & Holzman, R.(2005). Aggregation of binary evaluations. Working paper-Technion Israel University of Technology.
12. Dokow, E., & Holzman, R. (2007). Aggregation of binary evaluations with abstentions. Working paper.
13. Dung P. M. (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321-357.
14. Dung P. M., Mancarella P., Toni F. (2007) Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15): 642-674.
15. Estlund D. (1997) Beyond fairness and deliberation: The epistemic dimension of democratic authority. In: William R., James B. (eds) Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 173-204.
16. García A. J., Simari G. R. (2004) Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1): 95-138.
17. Gärdenfors P. (2006) A representation theorem for voting with logical consequences. Economics and Philosophy 22: 181-190.
18. Governatori G., Maher M. J., Antoniou G., Billington D. (2004) Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(5): 675-702.
19. Horty J. (2002) Skepticism and floating conclusions. Artificial Intelligence 135: 55-72.
20. Jakobovits H., Vermeir D. (1999) Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of logic and computation 9(2): 215-261.
21. Konieczny, S., & Pino Perez, R. (1998). On the logic of merging. In Proceedings of KR'98 (pp. 488-498).
22. Kornhauser L. A., Sager L. G. (1986) Unpacking the court. Yale Law Journal 96: 82-117.
23. Kornhauser L. A., Sager L. G. (1993) The one and the many: Adjudication in collegial courts. California Law Review 81: 1-51.
24. List C., Pettit P. (2002) Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy 18: 89-110.
25. List C., Pettit P. (2004) Aggregating sets of judgments: Two impossibility results compared. Synthese 140(1-2): 207-235.
26. List, C., & Puppe, C. (2009). Judgment aggregation: A survey. In P. Anand, C. Puppe, & P. Pattanaik (Eds.), Oxford handbook of rational and social choice. New York: Oxford University Press.
27. Makinson D. M., Schlechta K. (1991) Floating conclusions and zombie paths: Two deep difficulties in the "directly sceptical" approach to defeasible inheritance nets. Artificial Intelligence 48: 199-209.
28. Modgil S., Caminada M (2009) Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Rahwan I., Simari G. R. (eds) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 105-129.
29. Moffett M. A. (2007) Reasonable disagreement and rational group inquiry. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 4: 352-367.
30. Nehring, K. (2005). The (im)possibility of a Paretian rational. Economics working papers, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
31. Nehring K., Puppe C. (2007) The structure of strategy-proof social choice. part i: General characterization and possibility results on median spaces. Journal of Economic Theory 135: 269-305.
32. Pauly M., van Hees M. (2006) Logical constraints on judgment aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35: 569-585.
33. Pettit P. (2006) When to defer to majority testimony-and when not. Analysis 66(3): 179-187.
34. Pigozzi G. (2006) Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: An argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation. Synthese 152(2): 285-298.
35. Pollock J. L. (1995) Cognitive carpentry. A blueprint for how to build a person. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
36. Rahwan, I., & Larson, K. (2008). Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In D. Fox & C. P. Gomes (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-third AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI 2008, Chicago, IL, USA, July 13-17, 2008 (pp. 150-155). AAAI Press.
37. Sosa, E. (2007). The epistemology of disagreement (unpublished).
38. Tohmé, F. A., Bodanza, G. A., & Simari, G. R. (2008). Aggregation of attack relations: A social-choice theoretical analysis of defeasibility criteria. In S. Hartmann & G. Kern-Isberner (Eds.), Proceedings of foundations of information and knowledge systems, FoIKS 2008 (pp. 8-23), Italy: Pisa.
39. Verheij, B. (2007). A labeling approach to the computation of credulous acceptance in argumentation. In M. M. Veloso (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Hyderabad, India (pp. 623-628).
40. Vreeswijk, G. A. W., & Prakken, H. (2000). Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In Proceedings of the 7th European workshop on logic for artificial intelligence (JELIA-00), number 1919 in Springer Lecture Notes in AI (pp. 239-253), Berlin: Springer Verlag.
41. Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2006). An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems. In P. E. Dunne & T. J. M. Bench-Capon (Eds.), Computational models of argument; proceedings of COMMA 2006 (pp. 109-120). IOS.