Advertisement

A decision-making approach where argumentation added value tackles social choice deficiencies

  • Pierre Bisquert
  • Madalina Croitoru
  • Christos Kaklamanis
  • Nikos KaranikolasEmail author
Regular Paper
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

Collective decision-making in multi-agents systems is classically performed by employing social choice theory methods. Each member of the group (i.e. agent) expresses preferences as a (total) order over a given set of alternatives, and the group’s aggregated preference is computed using a voting rule. Nevertheless, classic social choice methods do not take into account the rationale behind agents’ preferences. Our research hypothesis is that a decision made by a group of participants understanding the qualitative rationale (expressed by arguments) behind each other’s preferences has better chances to be accepted and used in practice. Accordingly, in this work, we propose a novel qualitative procedure which combines argumentation with computational social choice for modelling the collective decision-making problem. We show that this qualitative approach produces structured preferences that can overcome major deficiencies that appear in the social choice literature and affect most of the major voting rules. Hence, in this paper we deal with the Condorcet paradox and the properties of monotonicity and Homogeneity which are unsatisfiable by many voting rules.

Keywords

Social choice Argumentation framework Collective decision-making Multi-agent systems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was implemented with a scholarship from IKY funded by the action “Support of Postdoctoral Researchers” from the resources of the EP “Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning” with priority axes 6, 8, 9 and is co-funded by the European Social Fund-ESF and the Greek state. This publication has been written with the support of the AgreenSkills+ fellowship programme which has received funding from the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement No. FP7-609398 (AgreenSkills+ contract).

References

  1. 1.
    Airiau, S., Bonzon, E., Endriss, U., Maudet, N., Rossit, J.: Rationalisation of profiles of abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’16), pp. 350–357 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Bonnefon, J.-F., Prade, H.: An argumentation-based approach to multiple criteria decision. In: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (ECSQARU’05), pp. 269–280 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artif. Intell. 173(3–4), 413–436 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arrow, K., Raynaud, H.: Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision-Making. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arrow, K.J.: A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. J. Polit. Econ. 58(4), 328–346 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benayoun, R., Roy, B., Sussman, B.: ELECTRE: une méthode pour guider le choix en présence des points de vue multiples. Note de travail 49. Technical report, SEMA-METRA International, Direction Scientifique (1966)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Black, D.: Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bodanza, G., Tohmé, F., Auday, M.: Collective argumentation: a survey of aggregation issues around argumentation frameworks. Argum. Comput. 8(1), 1–34 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bonnefon, J.-F., Fargier, H.: Comparing sets of positive and negative arguments: empirical assessment of seven qualitative rules. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on ECAI 2006: 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 16–20 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brandt, F.: Some remarks on Dodgson’s voting rule. Math. Log. Q. 55(4), 460–463 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brandt, F., Conitzer, V., Endriss, U., Lang, J., Procaccia, A.D.: Handbook of Computational Social Choice, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, New York (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Condorcet, M.D.: Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité de décisions rendues à la pluralité de voix. Imprimerie Royal. Facsimile published in 1972 by Chelsea Publishing Company, New York (1785)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dietrich, F., List, C.: A reason-based theory of rational choice. Noûs 47(1), 104–134 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dunne, P.E., Wooldridge, M.: Complexity of abstract argumentation. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 85–104 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dvorák, W., Woltran, S.: Complexity of semi-stable and stage semantics in argumentation frameworks. Inf. Process. Lett. 110(11), 425–430 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Felsenthal, D.S., Tideman, N.: Varieties of failure of monotonicity and participation under five voting methods. Theory Decis. 75(1), 59–77 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fishburn, P.C.: Monotonicity paradoxes in the theory of elections. Discrete Appl. Math. 4(2), 119–134 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fox, J., Parsons, S.: On using arguments for reasoning about actions and values. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Qualitative Preferences in Deliberation and Practical Reasoning, pp. 55–63 (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gibbard, A.: Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41(4), 587–601 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karacapilidis, N.I., Papadias, D.: A group decision and negotiation support system for argumentation based reasoning. In: Selected Papers from the Workshop on Reasoning with Incomplete and Changing Information and on Inducing Complex Representations (PRICAI’96), pp. 188–205 (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley, New York (1976)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morge, M., Mancarella, P.: The hedgehog and the fox. an argumentation-based decision support system. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMas’07), pp. 55–68 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ostanello, A.: Outranking Methods, pp. 41–60. Springer, Berlin (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roy, B.: Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples (la méthode electre). La Revue d’Informatique et de Recherche Opérationelle (RIRO) 8, 57–75 (1968)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roy, B.: The outranking approach and the foundations of electre methods. Theory Decis. 31(1), 49–73 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roy, B., Bouyssou, D.: Aide multicritère à la décision: Méthodes et cas. Economica, Paris (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Satterthwaite, M.A.: Strategy-proofness and arrow’s conditions: existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. J. Econ. Theory 10(2), 187–217 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Winterfeldt, D.V., Edwards, W.: Decision Analysis and Behavorial Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yun, B., Vesic, S., Croitoru, M., Bisquert, P., Thomopoulos, R.: A structural benchmark for logical argumentation. Frameworks Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis XVI, pp. 334–346 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Bisquert
    • 1
  • Madalina Croitoru
    • 2
  • Christos Kaklamanis
    • 3
    • 4
  • Nikos Karanikolas
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.IATE, INRA, GraphIKMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.GraphIK, LIRMMUniversity of MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.Computer Technology Institute and Press “Diophantus” (CTI)PatrasGreece
  4. 4.Department of Computer Engineering and InformaticsUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations