Related papers: Aggregating incoherent agents who disagree

A new approach for the description of phenomena of social aggregation is suggested. On the basis of psychological concepts (as for instance social norms and cultural coordinates), we deduce a general mechanism for the social aggregation in…

When multiple LLM agents solve the same problem, standard practice compresses each agent's reasoning into a majority vote or layered synthesis, treating agreement as the finish line. We show this is unnecessarily lossy: an LLM aggregator…

In a real expert system, one may have unreliable, unconfident, conflicting estimates of the value for a particular parameter. It is important for decision making that the information present in this aggregate somehow find its way into use.…

We introduce a new logic of graded distributed belief that allows us to express the fact that a group of agents distributively believe that a certain fact holds with at least strength k. We interpret our logic by means of computationally…

Merging beliefs requires the plausibility of the sources of the information to be merged. They are typically assumed equally reliable in lack of hints indicating otherwise; yet, a recent line of research spun from the idea of deriving this…

Many decision problems cannot be solved exactly and use several estimation algorithms that assign scores to the different available options. The estimation errors can have various correlations, from low (e.g. between two very different…

Despite a growing literature on explaining neural networks, no consensus has been reached on how to explain a neural network decision or how to evaluate an explanation. Our contributions in this paper are twofold. First, we investigate…

Aggregating signals from a collection of noisy sources is a fundamental problem in many domains including crowd-sourcing, multi-agent planning, sensor networks, signal processing, voting, ensemble learning, and federated learning. The core…

Faithfulness evaluators based on large language models (LLMs) are often fooled by the fluency of the text and struggle with identifying errors in the summaries. We propose an approach to summary faithfulness evaluation in which multiple…

Given a set of conflicting arguments, there can exist multiple plausible opinions about which arguments should be accepted, rejected, or deemed undecided. We study the problem of how multiple such judgments can be aggregated. We define the…

On the Web, there is always a need to aggregate opinions from the crowd (as in posts, social networks, forums, etc.). Different mechanisms have been implemented to capture these opinions such as "Like" in Facebook, "Favorite" in Twitter,…

One of the better studied properties for operators in judgment aggregation is independence, which essentially dictates that the collective judgment on one issue should not depend on the individual judgments given on some other issue(s) in…

In many real-life situations that involve exchanges of arguments, individuals may differ on their assessment of which supports between the arguments are in fact justified, i.e., they put forward different support-relations. When confronted…

This study considers the method to derive a ranking of alternatives by aggregating the rankings submitted by several individuals who may not evaluate all of them. The collection of subsets of alternatives that individuals (can) evaluate is…

In rank aggregation, members of a population rank issues to decide which are collectively preferred. We focus instead on identifying divisive issues that express disagreements among the preferences of individuals. We analyse the properties…

We consider multi-agent argumentation, where each agent's view of the arguments is encoded as an argumentation framework (AF). Then we study deliberative processes than can occur on this basis. We think of a deliberative process as taking…

In cooperative human decision-making, agreements are often not total; a partial degree of agreement is sufficient to commit to a decision and move on, as long as one is somewhat confident that the involved parties are likely to stand by…

This work is motivated by the need to assess the degree of agreement between two independent groups of raters. It proposes two new methods.

Value-based argumentation enhances a classical abstract argumentation graph - in which arguments are modelled as nodes connected by directed arrows called attacks - with labels on arguments, called values, and an ordering on values, called…

Current decision support systems address domains that are heterogeneous in nature and becoming progressively larger. Such systems often require the input of expert judgement about a variety of different fields and an intensive computational…