Abstract
AbstractIn the field of collective argumentation, multiple agents may have different knowledge representations and individual preferences. In order to obtain a reasonable collective outcome for the group, either individual frameworks should be merged or individual preferences should be aggregated. However, framework merging and preference aggregation are different procedures, leading to disagreements on collective outcomes. In this paper, we figure out a solution to combine framework merging, argumentative reasoning and incomplete preference aggregation together. Furthermore, a couple of rational postulates are proposed to be the criteria for the rationality of collective outcomes obtained based on our approach.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
