This paper focuses of the group judgments obtained from a committee of agents that use deliberation. The deliberative process is realized by an argumentation framework called AMAL. The AMAL framework is completely based on learning from examples: the argument preference relation, the argument generation policy, and the counterargument generation policy are case-based techniques. For join deliberation, learning agents share their experience by forming a committee to decide upon some joint decision. We experimentally show that the deliberation in committees of agents improves the accuracy of group judgments. We also show that a voting scheme based on assessing the confidence of arguments improves the accuracy of group judgments than majority voting.
Links:
[1] http://www.iiia.csic.es/en/individual/santiago-ontanon
[2] http://www.iiia.csic.es/en/individual/enric-plaza
[3] http://www.iiia.csic.es/en/publications/export/tagged/2899
[4] http://www.iiia.csic.es/en/publications/export/xml/2899
[5] http://www.iiia.csic.es/en/publications/export/bib/2899
[6] http://www.iiia.csic.es/en/project/at
[7] http://www.iiia.csic.es/en/project/mid-cbr