Skip to main content

Collective Argumentation with Topological Restrictions

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
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

Collective argumentation studies how to reach a collective decision that is acceptable to the group in a debate. I introduce the concept of topological restriction to enrich collective argumentation. Topological restrictions are rational constraints assumed to be satisfied by individual agents. We assume that in a debate, for every pair of arguments that are being considered, every agent indicates whether the first one attacks the second, i.e., an agent’s argumentative stance is characterized as an argumentation framework, and only argumentation frameworks that satisfy topological restrictions are allowed. The topological constraints we consider in this paper include acyclicity, symmetry, as well as a newly defined topological property called t-self-defense. We show that when profiles of argumentation frameworks provided by agents satisfy topological restrictions, impossibility results during aggregation can be avoided. Furthermore, if a profile is topological-restricted with respect to t-self-defense, then the majority rule preserves admissibility during aggregation.

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

Access this chapter

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.

    A notable exception is conflict-freeness, which can be preserved by the majority rule [12].

References

  1. Arrow, K.J., Sen, A.K., Suzumura, K. (eds.): Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare. North-Holland (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arrow, K.J.: Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (1963). First edition published in 1951

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Characterizing defeat graphs where argumentation semantics agree. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Argumentation and Non-Monotonic Reasoning (ARGNMR07), pp. 33–48 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 675–700 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 168(1–2), 162–210 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Baumeister, D., Neugebauer, D., Rothe, J.: Collective acceptability in abstract argumentation. J. Appl. Log. 2631(6), 1503 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Caminada, M., Pigozzi, G.: On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation. J. Auton. Agents Multiagent Syst. 22(1), 64–102 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen, W.: Collective argumentation: the case of aggregating support-relations of bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK), pp. 87–102 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chen, W.: Guaranteeing admissibility of abstract argumentation frameworks with rationality and feasibility constraints. J. Log. Comput. (2021, to appear). https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exab011

  11. Chen, W., Endriss, U.: Aggregating alternative extensions of abstract argumentation frameworks: preservation results for quota rules. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA). IOS Press (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

  13. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Marquis, P.: On the merging of Dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 730–753 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Symmetric argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 317–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Dietrich, F., List, C.: Majority voting on restricted domains. J. Econ. Theory 145(2), 512–543 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10), 642–674 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Endriss, U., Grandi, U.: Graph aggregation. Artif. Intell. 245, 86–114 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Grossi, D., Pigozzi, G.: Judgment Aggregation: A Primer. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Morgan & Claypool Publishers (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  20. List, C.: A possibility theorem on aggregation over multiple interconnected propositions. Math. Soc. Sci. 45(1), 1–13 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Rahwan, I., Tohmé, F.A.: Collective argument evaluation as judgement aggregation. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 417–424. IFAAMAS (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sen, A.K.: A possibility theorem on majority decisions. Econometrica: J. Econometric Soc. 491–499 (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tohmé, F.A., Bodanza, G.A., Simari, G.R.: Aggregation of attack relations: a social-choice theoretical analysis of defeasibility criteria. In: Hartmann, S., Kern-Isberner, G. (eds.) FoIKS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4932, pp. 8–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77684-0_4

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank three anonymous reviewers of CLAR-2020 for their helpful comments. This work was supported by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Grant (No. 2019M663352) and the Key Project of National Social Science Foundation of China (No. 16AZX017).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Weiwei Chen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

Chen, W. (2021). Collective Argumentation with Topological Restrictions. 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_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_5

  • 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