5,620 research outputs found
Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation Based on SCC Decomposability
In this paper we introduce a new set of general principles for probabilistic abstract argumentation. The main principle is a probabilistic analogue of SCC decomposability, which ensures that the probabilistic evaluation of an argumentation framework complies with the probabilistic (in)dependencies implied by the graph topology. We introduce various examples of probabilistic semantics and determine which principles they satisfy. Our work also provides new insights into the relationship between abstract argumentation and the theory of Bayesian networks
Probabilistic graded semantics
We propose a new graded semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks that is based on the constellations approach to probabilistic argumentation. Given an abstract argumentation framework, our approach assigns uniform probability to all arguments and then ranks arguments according to the probability of acceptance wrt. some classical semantics. Albeit relying on a simple idea this approach (1) is based on the solid theoretical foundations of probability theory, and (2) complies with many rationality postulates proposed for graded semantics. We also investigate an application of our approach for inconsistency measurement in argumentation frameworks and show that the measure induced by the probabilistic graded semantics also complies with the basic rationality postulates from that area
A Labelling Framework for Probabilistic Argumentation
The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new
accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new
theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests,
probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different
frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with
respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the
credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider,
and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements.
Towards a general framework for probabilistic argumentation, we investigate a
labelling-oriented framework encompassing a basic setting for rule-based
argumentation and its (semi-) abstract account, along with diverse types of
uncertainty. Our framework provides a systematic treatment of various kinds of
uncertainty and of their relationships and allows us to back or question
assertions from the literature
Probabilistic Argumentation with Epistemic Extensions and Incomplete Information
Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating
arguments and counterarguments. This approach can be enhanced by a probability
assignment to each argument. There are various interpretations that can be
ascribed to this assignment. In this paper, we regard the assignment as
denoting the belief that an agent has that an argument is justifiable, i.e.,
that both the premises of the argument and the derivation of the claim of the
argument from its premises are valid. This leads to the notion of an epistemic
extension which is the subset of the arguments in the graph that are believed
to some degree (which we defined as the arguments that have a probability
assignment greater than 0.5). We consider various constraints on the
probability assignment. Some constraints correspond to standard notions of
extensions, such as grounded or stable extensions, and some constraints give us
new kinds of extensions
Probabilistic Argumentation. An Equational Approach
There is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves 1)
identifying the basic units which build up the system and 2) introducing the
new feature to each of these basic units.
In the case where the system is argumentation and the feature is
probabilistic we have the following. The basic units are: a. the nature of the
arguments involved; b. the membership relation in the set S of arguments; c.
the attack relation; and d. the choice of extensions.
Generically to add a new aspect (probabilistic, or fuzzy, or temporal, etc)
to an argumentation network can be done by adding this feature to each
component a-d. This is a brute-force method and may yield a non-intuitive or
meaningful result.
A better way is to meaningfully translate the object system into another
target system which does have the aspect required and then let the target
system endow the aspect on the initial system. In our case we translate
argumentation into classical propositional logic and get probabilistic
argumentation from the translation.
Of course what we get depends on how we translate.
In fact, in this paper we introduce probabilistic semantics to abstract
argumentation theory based on the equational approach to argumentation
networks. We then compare our semantics with existing proposals in the
literature including the approaches by M. Thimm and by A. Hunter. Our
methodology in general is discussed in the conclusion
Towards a Computational Analysis of Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks
In this paper we analyze probabilistic argumentation frameworks (PAFs), defined as an extension of Dung abstract argumentation frameworks in which each argument n is asserted with a probability p(n). The debate around PAFs has so far centered on their theoretical definition and basic properties. This work contributes to their computational analysis by proposing a first recursive algorithm to compute the probability of acceptance of each argument under grounded and preferred semantics, and by studying the behavior of PAFs with respect to reinstatement, cycles and changes in argument structure. The computational tools proposed may provide strategic information for agents selecting the next step in an open argumentation process and they represent a contribution in the debate about gradualism in abstract argumentation
Stratified Labelings for Abstract Argumentation
We introduce stratified labelings as a novel semantical approach to abstract
argumentation frameworks. Compared to standard labelings, stratified labelings
provide a more fine-grained assessment of the controversiality of arguments
using ranks instead of the usual labels in, out, and undecided. We relate the
framework of stratified labelings to conditional logic and, in particular, to
the System Z ranking functions
Argument-based Belief in Topological Structures
This paper combines two studies: a topological semantics for epistemic
notions and abstract argumentation theory. In our combined setting, we use a
topological semantics to represent the structure of an agent's collection of
evidence, and we use argumentation theory to single out the relevant sets of
evidence through which a notion of beliefs grounded on arguments is defined. We
discuss the formal properties of this newly defined notion, providing also a
formal language with a matching modality together with a sound and complete
axiom system for it. Despite the fact that our agent can combine her evidence
in a 'rational' way (captured via the topological structure), argument-based
beliefs are not closed under conjunction. This illustrates the difference
between an agent's reasoning abilities (i.e. the way she is able to combine her
available evidence) and the closure properties of her beliefs. We use this
point to argue for why the failure of closure under conjunction of belief
should not bear the burden of the failure of rationality.Comment: In Proceedings TARK 2017, arXiv:1707.0825
- …