Collective Argumentation: The Case of Aggregating Support-Relations of Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks

Weiwei Chen
(Institute of Logic and Cognition and Department of Philosophy, Sun Yat-sen University)

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.

In Joseph Halpern and Andrés Perea: Proceedings Eighteenth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 2021), Beijing, China, June 25-27, 2021, Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 335, pp. 87–102.
Accepted by the 18th conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (TARK-2021)
Published: 22nd June 2021.

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