Would you like to see your presentation here, made available to a global audience of researchers?
Add your own presentation or have us affordably record your next conference.
Truth-tracking in collective reasoning systems is a core challenge in domains such as e-democracy, online deliberation, and citizen opinion polling. Recently, a novel framework known as opinion-based argumentation has been proposed, aiming to model both voting and argumentation, together with collective opinion semantics designed to select sets of arguments that are mutually coherent and aligned with the agents’ votes. In this paper, we address the problem of truth-tracking in opinion-based argumentation by formally defining the problem and presenting a systematic empirical analysis of collective opinion semantics. This analysis demonstrates substantial variation in their truth-tracking performance across deliberative conditions, by introducing VAST, a comprehensive evaluation framework designed to systematically assess the epistemic adequacy of collective opinion semantics under diverse deliberative conditions. VAST includes formally defined metrics, a structured methodology for generating synthetic argumentation settings with ground-truth extensions, and a large-scale benchmark covering multiple extension-based semantics, graph types, and vote reliability levels. Our results show that leveraging argumentation, as opposed to direct vote aggregation, substantially improves epistemic outcomes, particularly in settings with low vote quality or quantity.