Aggregation in Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks
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 strenghts 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.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Abstract ArgumentationSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Collective Argumentation: The Case of Aggregating Support-Relations of Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
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-relatio…
Preservation of Semantic Properties during the Aggregation of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
An abstract argumentation framework can be used to model the argumentative stance of an agent at a high level of abstraction, by indicating for every pair of arguments that is being considered in a debate whether the fir…
Abstract ArgumentationGradual Argumentation Evaluation for Stance Aggregation in Automated Fake News Detection
Stance detection plays a pivot role in fake news detection. The task involves determining the point of view or stance {--} for or against {--} a text takes towards a claim. One very important stage in employing stance de…
Fake News DetectionStance DetectionForecasting Argumentation Frameworks
We introduce Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks (FAFs), a novel argumentation-based methodology for forecasting informed by recent judgmental forecasting research. FAFs comprise update frameworks which empower (human o…
On the Relative Expressiveness of Argumentation Frameworks, Normal Logic Programs and Abstract Dialectical Frameworks
We analyse the expressiveness of the two-valued semantics of abstract argumentation frameworks, normal logic programs and abstract dialectical frameworks. By expressiveness we mean the ability to encode a desired set of …
Abstract Argumentation