Social Argument Justification: Some Mechanisms and Conditions for Their Coincidence

In this paper we analyze the problem of aggregating different individual argumentation frameworks over a common set of arguments in order to obtain a unique socially justified set of arguments. This can be done in two different ways: a social attack relation is built up from the individual ones, and then is used to produce a set of justified arguments, or this set is directly obtained from the sets of individually justified arguments. Our main concern here is whether these two procedures can coincide or under what conditions this could happen. To deal with this, we consider different voting by quota mechanisms, and the aggregation mechanisms by decisive sets.

[1]  Thomas Lukasiewicz.  Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on the Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems‚ FoIKS 2012‚ Kiel‚ Germany‚ March 5−9‚ 2012 , 2000 .

[2]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Aggregation of Attack Relations: A Social-Choice Theoretical Analysis of Defeasibility Criteria , 2008, FoIKS.

[3]  Hannu Nurmi,et al.  Voting paradoxes and how to deal with them , 1999 .

[4]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Integrating Object and Meta-Level Value Based Argumentation , 2008, COMMA.

[5]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Value Based Argumentation in Hierarchical Argumentation Frameworks , 2006, COMMA.

[7]  Gabriella Pigozzi,et al.  Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation , 2006, Synthese.

[8]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Mechanism design for abstract argumentation , 2008, AAMAS.

[9]  J. Banks,et al.  Positive Political Theory I: Collective Preference , 1998 .

[10]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[11]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On the merging of Dung's argumentation systems , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Christian List,et al.  Aggregating Sets of Judgments: Two Impossibility Results Compared1 , 2004, Synthese.

[13]  Kotaro Suzumura,et al.  Introduction, Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, Edited by Kenneth Arrow, Amartya Sen and Kotaro Suzumura, Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland , 2001 .

[14]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Propositional belief base merging or how to merge beliefs/goals coming from several sources and some links with social choice theory , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..