Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating Individual Preferences into Collective Argumentation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Logic and Argumentation (CLAR 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 13040))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In the field of collective argumentation, multiple agents may have distinct knowledge representations and individual preferences. In order to obtain reasonable collective outcome for the group, either individual frameworks should be merged or individual preference should be aggregated. However, framework merging and preference aggregation are different procedures, leading to disagreements on collective outcome. In this paper, we figure out a solution to combine framework merging, argumentative reasoning and incomplete preference aggregation together. Furthermore, a couple of rational postulates are proposed to be the criteria for the reasonability of collective outcome obtained based on our approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For any set \(S, \#(S)\) denotes the cardinality of S.

References

  1. Bodanza, G., Tohmé, F., Auday, M.: Collective argumentation: a survey of aggregation issues around argumentation frameworks. Argument Comput. 8, 1–34 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Marquis, P.: On the merging of Dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 171, 730–753 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Delobelle, J., Haret, A., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.G., Rossit, J., Woltran, S.: Merging of abstract argumentation frameworks. In: KR, pp. 33–42 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Weighted argumentation systems: a tool for merging argumentation systems. In: 2011 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp. 629–632 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gabbay, D., Rodrigues, O.: A numerical approach to the merging of argumentation networks. In: Fisher, M., van der Torre, L., Dastani, M., Governatori, G. (eds.) CLIMA 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7486, pp. 195–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32897-8_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Delobelle, J., Konieczny, S., Vesic, S.: On the aggregation of argumentation frameworks: operators and postulates. J. Log. Comput. 28, 1671–1699 (2018)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Konczak, K., Lang, J.: Voting procedures with incomplete preferences. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI 2005 Multidisciplinary Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling, vol. 20 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. J. Autom. Reason. 29, 125–169 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55, 585–606 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaci, S., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Preference in abstract argumentation. In: 7th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), vol. 305, pp. 405–412 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Airiau, S., Bonzon, E., Endriss, U., Maudet, N., Rossit, J.: Rationalisation of profiles of abstract argumentation frameworks: characterisation and complexity. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 60, 149–177 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Lisowski, G., Doutre, S., Grandi, U.: Aggregation in value-based argumentation frameworks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.09113 (2019)

  14. Liao, B., Li, C.: A solution to ethical dilemmas based on preference aggregation and formal argumentation. J. Hunan Univ. Sci. Technol. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 23(3), 33–49 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chen, W., Endriss, U.: Preservation of semantic properties in collective argumentation: the case of aggregating abstract argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 269, 27–48 (2019)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Dunne, P.E., Marquis, P., Wooldridge, M.: Argument aggregation: basic axioms and complexity results. In: Computational Models of Argument, vol. 129–140. IOS Press (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Two roles of preferences in argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6717, pp. 86–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22152-1_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.G., Marquis P.: On the revision of argumentation systems: minimal change of arguments statuses. In: KR, pp. 52–61 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bench-Capon, T.J.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13, 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Lu, T., Boutilier, C.: Robust approximation and incremental elicitation in voting protocols. In: IJCAI, pp. 287–293 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Baumeister, D., Neugebauer, D., Rothe, J., Schadrack, H.: Verification in incomplete argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 264, 1–26 (2018)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this paper was supported in part by the “2030 Megaproject”—New Generation Artificial Intelligence of China under Grant 2018AAA0100904, the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province under Grant No. LY20F030014, and the National Social Science Foundation Major Project of China under grant No. 20 & ZD047.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Logic and Cognition, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Chonghui Li & Beishui Liao

Authors
  1. Chonghui Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beishui Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chonghui Li .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Engineering, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy

    Pietro Baroni

  2. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Christoph Benzmüller

  3. Department of Philosophy (Zhuhai), Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, China

    Yὶ N. Wáng

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Li, C., Liao, B. (2021). Integrating Individual Preferences into Collective Argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Benzmüller, C., Wáng, Y.N. (eds) Logic and Argumentation. CLAR 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13040. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-89390-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-89391-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation