• xmlui.mirage2.page-structure.header.title
    • français
    • English
  • Help
  • Login
  • Language 
    • Français
    • English
View Item 
  •   BIRD Home
  • LAMSADE (UMR CNRS 7243)
  • LAMSADE : Publications
  • View Item
  •   BIRD Home
  • LAMSADE (UMR CNRS 7243)
  • LAMSADE : Publications
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Browse

BIRDResearch centres & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesTypeThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesType

My Account

LoginRegister

Statistics

Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors
Thumbnail

Pareto optimality and strategy-proofness in group argument evaluation

Awad, Edmond; Caminada, Martin; Pigozzi, Gabriella; Podlaszewski, Mikolaj; Rahwan, Iyad (2017), Pareto optimality and strategy-proofness in group argument evaluation, Journal of logic and computation, 27, 8, p. 2581–2609. 10.1093/logcom/exx017

View/Open
Pareto_optimaly.pdf (756.5Kb)
Type
Article accepté pour publication ou publié
Date
2017
Journal name
Journal of logic and computation
Volume
27
Number
8
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Pages
2581–2609
Publication identifier
10.1093/logcom/exx017
Metadata
Show full item record
Author(s)
Awad, Edmond
Caminada, Martin
Pigozzi, Gabriella
Podlaszewski, Mikolaj
Rahwan, Iyad
Abstract (EN)
An inconsistent knowledge base can be abstracted as a set of arguments and a defeat relation among them. There can be more than one consistent way to evaluate such an argumentation graph. Collective argument evaluation is the problem of aggregating the opinions of multiple agents on how a given set of arguments should be evaluated. It is crucial not only to ensure that the outcome is logically consistent, but also satisfies measures of social optimality and immunity to strategic manipulation. This is because agents have their individual preferences about what the outcome ought to be. In the current paper, we analyze three previously introduced argument-based aggregation operators with respect to Pareto optimality and strategy proofness under different general classes of agent preferences. We highlight fundamental trade-offs between strategic manipulability and social optimality on one hand, and classical logical criteria on the other. Our results motivate further investigation into the relationship between social choice and argumentation theory. The results are also relevant for choosing an appropriate aggregation operator given the criteria that are considered more important, as well as the nature of agents' preferences
Subjects / Keywords
Argumentation; Strategy-proofness; Pareto optimality; Judgment aggregation

Related items

Showing items related by title and author.

  • Thumbnail
    Manipulation in Group Argument Evaluation 
    Caminada, Martin; Pigozzi, Gabriella; Podlaszewski, Mikolaj (2011) Communication / Conférence
  • Thumbnail
    Manipulation in group argument evaluation 
    Podlaszewski, Mikolaj; Pigozzi, Gabriella; Caminada, Martin (2011) Communication / Conférence
  • Thumbnail
    On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation 
    Pigozzi, Gabriella; Caminada, Martin (2011) Article accepté pour publication ou publié
  • Thumbnail
    An Implementation of Basic Argumentation Components 
    Pigozzi, Gabriella; Caminada, Martin; Podlaszewski, Mikolaj (2011) Communication / Conférence
  • Thumbnail
    Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems Second International Workshop, ArgMAS 2005, Revised Selected and Invited Papers 
    Rahwan, Iyad; Pavlos, Moraitis; Maudet, Nicolas; Parsons, Simon (2006) Ouvrage
Dauphine PSL Bibliothèque logo
Place du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny 75775 Paris Cedex 16
Phone: 01 44 05 40 94
Contact
Dauphine PSL logoEQUIS logoCreative Commons logo