In many real-life situations that involve exchanges of arguments, individuals may differ on their assessment of which supports between the arguments are in fact justified, i.e., they put forward different support-relations. When confronted with such situations, we may wish to aggregate individuals' argumentation views on support-relations into a collective view, which is acceptable to the group. In this paper, we assume that under bipolar argumentation frameworks, individuals are equipped with a set of arguments and a set of attacks between arguments, but with possibly different support-relations. Using the methodology in social choice theory, we analyze what semantic properties of bipolar argumentation frameworks can be preserved by aggregation rules during the aggregation of support-relations.
翻译:在许多涉及相互争论的实际情况下,个人对各种争论的判断可能有所不同,而对于这些争论的判断是有道理的,也就是说,他们提出了不同的支持关系。面对这种情况,我们不妨将个人对支持关系的观点汇总为集体观点,群体可以接受这种观点。在本文中,我们假设在两极争论框架内,个人拥有一套论据,对各种争论进行攻击,但可能存在不同的支持关系。我们利用社会选择理论的方法,分析两极争论框架的语义特性在支持关系汇总过程中可以通过汇总规则加以维护。