Aggregation in Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks

Grzegorz Lisowski
(University of Warwick)
Sylvie Doutre
(University of Toulouse)
Umberto Grandi
(University of Toulouse)

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 audience, to provide a more fine-grained justification of the attack relation. With more than one agent facing such an argumentation problem, agents may differ in their ranking of values. When needing to reach a collective view, such agents face a dilemma between two equally justifiable approaches: aggregating their views at the level of values, or aggregating their attack relations, remaining therefore at the level of the graphs. We explore the strengths and limitations of both approaches, employing techniques from preference aggregation and graph aggregation, and propose a third possibility aggregating rankings extracted from given attack relations.

In Lawrence S. Moss: Proceedings Seventeenth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 2019), Toulouse, France, 17-19 July 2019, Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 297, pp. 313–331.
Published: 19th July 2019.

ArXived at: bibtex PDF
References in reconstructed bibtex, XML and HTML format (approximated).
Comments and questions to:
For website issues: