Interval methods for judgment aggregation in argumentation

Booth, Richard ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6647-6381, Awad, Edmond and Rahwan, Iyad 2014. Interval methods for judgment aggregation in argumentation. Presented at: 14th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Vienna, Austria, 20-24 July 2014.

Preview

PDF - Accepted Post-Print Version Download (225kB) | Preview

Abstract

Given a set of conflicting arguments, there can exist multiple plausible opinions about which arguments should be accepted, rejected, or deemed undecided. Recent work explored some operators for deciding how multiple such judgments should be aggregated. Here, we generalize this line of study by introducing a family of operators called interval aggregation methods, which contain existing operators as instances. While these methods fail to output a complete labelling in general, we show that it is possible to transform a given aggregation method into one that does always yield collectively rational labellings. This employs the down-admissible and up-complete constructions of Caminada and Pigozzi. For interval methods, collective rationality is attained at the expense of a strong Independence postulate, but we show that an interesting weakening of the Independence postulate is retained.

Item Type:	Conference or Workshop Item (Paper)
Status:	Unpublished
Schools:	Computer Science & Informatics
Subjects:	Q Science > QA Mathematics > QA75 Electronic computers. Computer science
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	22 April 2016
Date of Acceptance:	28 January 2014
Last Modified:	01 Nov 2022 09:55
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/89688

Citation Data

Cited 7 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item