Quantitative Argumentation Debates with Votes for Opinion Polling

Rago, Antonio; Toni, Francesca

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_22

Cited by 18 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Quantitative Argumentation Debates (QuAD frameworks) [9] associate arguments to a numerical strength (called base score), and their gradual semantics define a degree of acceptance for each argument. A variant of QuAD frameworks [64] has been used to give a novel method for opinion polling, with arguments base scores corresponding to users votes.…”

Section: Representing Strength In Abstract Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

United we stand: Accruals in strength-based argumentation

Rossit

Mailly

Dimopoulos

et al. 2021

AAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argumentation has been an important topic in knowledge representation, reasoning and multi-agent systems during the last twenty years. In this paper, we propose a new abstract framework where arguments are associated with a strength, namely a quantitative information which is used to determine whether an attack between arguments succeeds or not. Our Strength-based Argumentation Framework (StrAF) combines ideas of Preference-based and Weighted Argumentation Frameworks in an original way, which permits to define acceptability semantics sensitive to the existence of accruals between arguments. The question of accruals arises in situations where several arguments defending the same position (but from different points of view) against another argument are unable to individually defeat this argument, but could do it collectively if they combine their strengths. We investigate some of the theoretical and computational properties of our new framework and semantics, and present a reasoning algorithm that is based on a translation of the problem into pseudo-boolean constraint satisfaction. This paper proposes an intuitive framework which allows strength compensations in an argumentation context where attacks may not succeed, completed by an approach which detects accruals throughout the reasoning process without requiring the elicitation of all compensatory combinations of arguments as an input.

show abstract

Section: Representing Strength In Abstract Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

United we stand: Accruals in strength-based argumentation

Rossit

Mailly

Dimopoulos

et al. 2021

AAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This notion admits several concrete counterparts. For instance the base score may be determined on the basis of positive and negative votes received by arguments from an audience in a social evaluation context [10,17] or, in a technical debate context, can be the outcome of an expert assessment [9]. In other approaches the base score arises from an evaluation of the structural components of the argument.…”

Section: Preliminariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

From fine-grained properties to broad principles for gradual argumentation: A principled spectrum

Baroni

Rago

Toni

2019

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of properties of gradual evaluation methods in argumentation has received increasing attention in recent years, with studies devoted to various classes of frameworks/methods leading to conceptually similar but formally distinct properties in different contexts. In this paper we provide a novel systematic analysis for this research landscape by making three main contributions. First, we identify groups of conceptually related properties in the literature, which can be regarded as based on common patterns and, using these patterns, we evidence that many further novel properties can be considered. Then, we provide a simplifying and unifying perspective for these groups of properties by showing that they are all implied by novel parametric principles of (either strict or non-strict) balance and monotonicity. Finally, we show that (instances of) these principles (and thus the group, literature and novel properties that they imply) are satisfied by several quantitative argumentation formalisms in the literature, thus confirming the principles' general validity and utility to support a compact, yet comprehensive, analysis of properties of gradual argumentation.

show abstract

“…More recently, in the intersection of social choice theory and argumentation, we find the interesting work in Rago and Toni (2017). Similarly to our work, the QuAD-V framework in Rago and Toni (2017) allows pro and con arguments (attackers and defenders in our terminology) and agents' votes over arguments (labels). Nonetheless QuAD-V does not allow arguments to be attackers and defenders at the same time.…”

Section: Social Choice Theorymentioning

confidence: 65%

“…Nonetheless QuAD-V does not allow arguments to be attackers and defenders at the same time. Although Rago and Toni (2017) propose the QuAD-V algorithm to determine a collective decision from multiple opinions by exploiting the dependencies between arguments, their goal is rather different from ours. Thus, they focus on the debate procedure (opinion polling) to ensure that, at the end of the debate, the agents contribute with individually rational opinions, a weaker version of our notion of coherent labelling.…”

Section: Social Choice Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining Social Choice Theory and Argumentation: Enabling Collective Decision Making

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argumentation-based debates are mechanisms that a group can use to resolve conflicting opinions and hence reach agreement. They have many potential applications in on-line communities and other open environments. In this paper, we provide computational infrastructure to support argumentation-based debates, in particular focusing on the problem of how participants in a debate can reach agreement about the outcome of the debate, given all the statements that have been made. Our approach makes it possible to represent arguments that are put forward by the participants in a debate, allows both positive and negative relationships between the arguments to be represented, and makes it possible for participants to express opinions about both the arguments and the outcome of the debate. Our main contribution is to provide a novel method-indeed the first method-for computing the collective decision that emerges from the combination of a set of arguments and a set of opinions about whether the arguments hold or not. To do this, we carry out a formal investigation of a family of aggregation functions. This family starts with a function that is firmly rooted in the social choice literature, and is extended with functions that are more oriented towards the use of argumentation. We prove that to ensure that the collective decision is coherent, a property that we think is essential, an aggregation function needs to take into account the dependencies between arguments. We also provide an empirical analysis of the performance of our approach to reaching a collective decision, showing that a collective decision can be reached for debates, of the size that one currently finds online, in reasonable time.

show abstract

Quantitative Argumentation Debates with Votes for Opinion Polling

Cited by 18 publications

References 13 publications

United we stand: Accruals in strength-based argumentation

United we stand: Accruals in strength-based argumentation

From fine-grained properties to broad principles for gradual argumentation: A principled spectrum

Combining Social Choice Theory and Argumentation: Enabling Collective Decision Making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About