Collective Argumentation: The Case of Aggregating Support-Relations of Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
Abstract
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 with such situations, we may wish to aggregate individuals' argumentation views on support-relations into a collective view, which is acceptable to the group. In this paper, we assume that under bipolar argumentation frameworks, individuals are equipped with a set of arguments and a set of attacks between arguments, but with possibly different support-relations. Using the methodology in social choice theory, we analyze what semantic properties of bipolar argumentation frameworks can be preserved by aggregation rules during the aggregation of support-relations.
Keywords
Cite
@article{arxiv.2106.11496,
title = {Collective Argumentation: The Case of Aggregating Support-Relations of Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks},
author = {Weiwei Chen},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11496},
year = {2021}
}
Comments
In Proceedings TARK 2021, arXiv:2106.10886. Accepted by the 18th conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (TARK-2021)