Dynamic collective argumentation: Constructing the revision and contraction operators

Abstract

Collective argumentation has always focused on obtaining rational collective argumentative decisions. One approach that has been extensively studied in the literature is the aggregation of individual extensions of an argumentation framework. However, previous studies have only examined aggregation processes in static terms, focusing on preserving semantic properties at a given time. In contrast, this paper investigates whether decisions remain rational when the preservation process is dynamic, meaning that it can incorporate new information. To address the dynamic nature of collective argumentation, we introduce the revision and contraction operators. These operators reflect the idea that when an individual or a group learns something new by accepting or rejecting an argument, they have to update their collective decision accordingly. Our study examines whether the order of revising individual opinions and aggregating them affects the final outcome, i.e., whether aggregation and revision commute.