Interval Methods for Judgment Aggregation in Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Given a set of conflicting arguments, there can exist multiple plausible opinions about which arguments should be accepted, rejected, or deemed undecided. Recent work explored some operators for deciding how multiple such judgments should be aggregated. Here, we generalize this line of study by introducing a family of operators called interval aggregation methods, which contain existing operators as instances. While these methods fail to output a complete labelling in general, we show that it is possible to transform a given aggregation method into one that does always yield collectively rational labellings. This employs the downadmissible and up-complete constructions of Caminada and Pigozzi. For interval methods, collective rationality is attained at the expense of a strong Independence postulate, but we show that an interesting weakening of the Independence postulate is retained.
منابع مشابه
Judgment Aggregation in Abstract Dialectical Frameworks
Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are a knowledge representation formalism introduced as a generalisation of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) by Gerhard Brewka and coauthors. We look at a judgment aggregation problem in ADFs, namely the problem of aggregating a profile of complete interpretations. We generalise the family of interval aggregation methods, studied in the AF cas...
متن کاملUsing Distances for Aggregation in Abstract Argumentation
We continue recent work on the problem of aggregating labellings of an argumentation framework by adapting the distance-based framework of Miller and Osherson from binary judgment aggregation to the argumentation setting. To instantiate the framework we employ some notions of labellingdistance recently introduced by Booth et al., in the process generalising and extending some of the latters’ re...
متن کاملAn Implementation of Basic Argumentation Components (Demonstration)
The current implementation provides a demonstration of a number of basic argumentation components that can be applied in the context of multi-agent systems. These components include algorithms for calculating argumentation semantics, as well as for determining the justification status of the arguments and providing explanation in the form of formal discussion games. Furthermore, the current dem...
متن کاملA Dialectical Approach for Argument-Based Judgment Aggregation
The current paper provides a dialectical interpretation of the argumentation-based judgment aggregation operators of Caminada and Pigozzi. In particular, we define discussion-based proof procedures for the foundational concepts of down-admissible and up-complete. We then show how these proof procedures can be used as the basis of dialectical proof procedures for the sceptical, credulous and sup...
متن کاملA Liberal Impossibility of Abstract Argumentation
In abstract argumentation, where arguments are viewed as abstract entities with a binary defeat relation among them, a set of agents may assign individual members the right to determine the collective defeat relation on some pairs of arguments. I prove that even under a minimal condition of rationality, the assignment of rights to two or more agents is inconsistent with the unanimity principle,...
متن کامل