# Collective Argumentation: The Case of Aggregating Support-Relations of Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.11496 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.11496/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 1 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Jun 2021.

## Builds on (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Graph Aggregation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1609.03765/) (2016)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.