BODANZA Gustavo Adrian
Collective argumentation: A survey of aggregation issues around argumentation frameworks
BODANZA, GUSTAVO ADRIÁN; TOHMÉ, FERNANDO ABEL; AUDAY, MARCELO ROBERTO
ARGUMENT AND COMPUTATION
Año: 2017 vol. 8 p. 1 - 1
Dung´s argumentation frameworks have been applied for over twentyyears to the analysis of argument justiﬁcation. This representation focuseson arguments and the attacks among them, abstracting away from otherfeatures like the internal structure of arguments, the nature of utterers, thespeciﬁcs of the attack relation, etc. The model is highly attractive becauseit reduces most of the complexities involved in argumentation processes.It can be applied to diﬀerent settings, like the argument evaluation ofan individual agent or the case of dialectic disputes between two agents(pro and con), or even in multi-agent collective argumentation. The lattercase involves agents with possibly diﬀerent arguments and/or opinions onhow to evaluate them, leading to the possibility of considering multiplesets of arguments and attack relations. Two basic questions can be askedhere, namely ?what to aggregate? and ?how to aggregate?. The former con-cerns what kinds of entities do the agents intend to choose (arguments,attacks, assessments, etc.), while the second one focuses on which aggre-gation mechanisms yield rational choices (voting on arguments, mergingprocedures to obtain a common argumentation framework, deliberationprocesses, etc.). In particular, the question about the rationality of acollective argument choice relates this topic to Social Choice and Judg-ment Aggregation theories, while its associated strategic issues relate itto Game Theory. The research eﬀorts on the disparate problems elicitedby collective argumentation have generated a considerable corpus of lit-erature that deserves an orderly evaluation. This survey is intended as acontribution to that end.