A Target-Oriented Discussion Framework to Support Collective Decision Making

  • Jordi Ganzer-Ripoll
  • Maite Lopez-Sanchez
  • Juan Antonio Rodriguez-AguilarEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10207)


Argumentative debates are a powerful tool for resolving conflicts and reaching agreements in open environments such as on-line communities. Here we introduce an argumentation framework to structure argumentative debates. Our framework represents the arguments issued by the participants involved in a debate, the (attack and defence) relationships between them, as well as participants’ opinions on them. Furthermore, we tackle the problem of computing a collective decision from participants’ opinions. With this aim, we design an aggregation function to ensure that participants reach a coherent collective decision.


  1. 1.
    City of Barcelona participation portal (2016).
  2. 2.
    City of Reykjavík participation portal (2016).
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Livet, P.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23(10), 1062–1093 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Awad, E., Booth, R., Tohmé, F., Rahwan, I.: Judgment aggregation in multi-agent argumentation. CoRR, abs/1405.6509 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trevor, J., Bench-Capon, M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 619–641 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11853886_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caminada, M.W.A., Gabbay, D.M.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Stud. Logica. 93(2–3), 109–145 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS, vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11518655_33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dietrich, F.: A generalised model of judgment aggregation. Soc. Choice Welf. 28(4), 529–565 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gabbriellini, S., Torroni, P.: Microdebates: structuring debates without a structuring tool1. AI Commun. 29(1), 31–51 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klein, M.: Enabling large-scale deliberation using attention-mediation metrics. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 21(4–5), 449–473 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klein, M., Convertino, G.: A roadmap for open innovation systems. J. Soc. Media Org. 2(1), 1 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R., Benthem, J.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 47. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weerakkody, V., Reddick, C.G.: Public Sector Transformation Through e-Government: Experiences from Europe and North America. Routledge, Abingdon (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jordi Ganzer-Ripoll
    • 1
  • Maite Lopez-Sanchez
    • 1
  • Juan Antonio Rodriguez-Aguilar
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Departament de Matemàtiques i Informàtica, Facultat de Matemàtiques i InformàticaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.IIIA, Artificial Intelligence Research InstituteCSIC, Spanish National Research CouncilBellaterraSpain

Personalised recommendations