On Relating Voting Systems and Argumentation Frameworks
نویسندگان
چکیده
Abstract. In the modern world formal voting theories are becoming established and can be used to determine if a Voting System (VS) is fair or not in order to preserve democracy. The Argumentation Framework (AF) is based on the exchange and the evaluation of interacting arguments which may represent information of various kinds. We define a bijective mapping between the two theories and investigate how fairness criteria defined for voting systems can be re-interpreted inside the Argumentation Frameworks.
منابع مشابه
Social Abstract Argumentation
In this paper we take a step towards using Argumentation in Social Networks and introduce Social Abstract Argumentation Frameworks, an extension of Dung’s Abstract Argumentation Frameworks that incorporates social voting. We propose a class of semantics for these new Social Abstract Argumentation Frameworks and prove some important non-trivial properties which are crucial for their applicabilit...
متن کاملComparing Argumentation Frameworks for Composite Ontology Matching
Resolving the semantic heterogeneity problem is crucial to allow interoperability between ontology-based systems. Ontology matching based on argumentation is an innovative research area that aims at solving this issue, where agents encapsulate different matching techniques and the distinct mapping results are shared, compared, chosen and agreed. In this paper, we compare three argumentation fra...
متن کاملRelating ways to instantiate abstract argumentation frameworks
This paper studies the relation between various ways to instantiate Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks. First the ASPIC framework, which explicitly generates abstract argumentation frameworks, is equivalently reformulated in terms of John Pollock’s recursive labelling method, which does not explicitly generate such frameworks. The reformulation arguably facilitates more natural explanatio...
متن کاملUsing Quantitative Aspects of Alignment Generation for Argumentation on Mappings
State-of-the art mappers articulate several techniques using different sources of knowledge in an unified process. An important issue of ontology mapping is to find ways of choosing among many techniques and their variations, and then combining their results. For this, an innovative and promising option is to use frameworks dealing with arguments for or against correspondences. In this paper, w...
متن کاملRelating Concrete Argumentation Formalisms and Abstract Argumentation
There are a wide variety of formalisms for defeasible reasoning that can be seen as implementing concrete argumentation on defeasible rules. However there has been little work on the relationship between such languages and Dung’s abstract argumentation. In this paper we identify two small fragments on which many concrete defeasible formalisms agree. The two fragments are closely related, as we ...
متن کامل