Judgment Aggregation in Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

  • Richard Booth
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9060)


Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are a knowledge representation formalism introduced as a generalisation of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) by Gerhard Brewka and co-authors. 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 case in our previous work, to the ADF case. Along the way we define the notions of down-admissible and up-complete interpretations, that were already previously defined for the AF case by Caminada and Pigozzi. These aggregation methods may open the way to define interesting new semantics for ADFs, such as a generalisation to the ADF case of the ideal semantics for AFs.


Abstract dialectical frameworks argumentation frameworks judgment aggregation interval methods 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowledge Engineering Review 26(4), 365–410 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 171(10), 675–700 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Booth, R., Awad, E., Rahwan, I.: Interval methods for judgment aggregation in argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2014), pp. 594–597 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brewka, G., Ellmauthaler, S., Strass, H., Wallner, J.P., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks revisited. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2013), pp. 803–809 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2010), pp. 102–111 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caminada, M., Gabbay, D.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Studia Logica 93(2-3), 109–145 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caminada, M., Pigozzi, G.: On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 22(1), 64–102 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Denecker, M., Marek, V.W., Truszczyński, M.: Ultimate approximation and its application in nonmonotonic knowledge representation systems. Information and Computation 192(1), 84–121 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 171(10), 642–674 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grossi, D., Pigozzi, G.: Judgment Aggregation: A Primer. Morgan and Claypool (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    List, C., Puppe, C.: Judgment aggregation: A survey. In: Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. Oxford University Press (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Strass, H.: Approximating operators and semantics for abstract dialectical frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 205, 39–70 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Young, S.C., Taylor, A.D., Zwicker, W.S.: Counting quota systems: A combinatorial question from social choice theory. Mathematics Magazine, 331–342 (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Booth
    • 1
  1. 1.Université du LuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations