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

Computing the Grounded Semantics in all the Subgraphs of an Argumentation Framework: an Empirical Evaluation

Given an argumentation framework – with a finite set of arguments and the attack relation identifying the graph – we study how the grounded labelling of a generic argument a varies in all the subgraphs of . Since this is an intractable problem of above-polynomial complexity, we present two non-naïve algorithms to find the set of all the subgraphs where the grounded semantic assigns to argument a specific label . We report the results of a series of empirical tests over graphs of increasing complexity. The value of researching the above problem is two-fold. First, knowing how an argument behaves in all the subgraphs represents strategic information for arguing agents. Second, the algorithms can be applied to the computation of the recently introduced probabilistic argumentation frameworks

Equilibrium States in Numerical Argumentation Networks

Given an argumentation network with initial values to the arguments, we look for algorithms which can yield extensions compatible with such initial values. We find that the best way of tackling this problem is to offer an iteration formula that takes the initial values and the attack relation and iterates a sequence of intermediate values that eventually converges leading to an extension. The properties surrounding the application of the iteration formula and its connection with other numerical and non-numerical techniques proposed by others are thoroughly investigated in this paper

A probabilistic deontic argumentation framework

Régis Riveret: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Nir Oren: Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Giovanni Sartor: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.Peer reviewedPostprin

Probabilistic Reasoning with Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating arguments and counterarguments. This approach can be enhanced by considering probability assignments on arguments, allowing for a quantitative treatment of formal argumentation. In this paper, we regard the assignment as denoting the degree of belief that an agent has in an argument being acceptable. While there are various interpretations of this, an example is how it could be applied to a deductive argument. Here, the degree of belief that an agent has in an argument being acceptable is a combination of the degree to which it believes the premises, the claim, and the derivation of the claim from the premises. We consider constraints on these probability assignments, inspired by crisp notions from classical abstract argumentation frameworks and discuss the issue of probabilistic reasoning with abstract argumentation frameworks. Moreover, we consider the scenario when assessments on the probabilities of a subset of the arguments are given and the probabilities of the remaining arguments have to be derived, taking both the topology of the argumentation framework and principles of probabilistic reasoning into account. We generalise this scenario by also considering inconsistent assessments, i.e., assessments that contradict the topology of the argumentation framework. Building on approaches to inconsistency measurement, we present a general framework to measure the amount of conflict of these assessments and provide a method for inconsistency-tolerant reasoning