3,944 research outputs found
Empirical Evaluation of Abstract Argumentation: Supporting the Need for Bipolar and Probabilistic Approaches
In dialogical argumentation it is often assumed that the involved parties
always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other,
realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability
states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views when new and correct
information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is
sufficient to represent their opinions. Although it is natural to make these
assumptions as a starting point for further research, removing them or even
acknowledging that such removal should happen is more challenging for some of
these concepts than for others. Probabilistic argumentation is one of the
approaches that can be harnessed for more accurate user modelling. The
epistemic approach allows us to represent how much a given argument is believed
by a given person, offering us the possibility to express more than just three
agreement states. It is equipped with a wide range of postulates, including
those that do not make any restrictions concerning how initial arguments should
be viewed, thus potentially being more adequate for handling beliefs of the
people that have not fully disclosed their opinions in comparison to Dung's
semantics. The constellation approach can be used to represent the views of
different people concerning the structure of the framework we are dealing with,
including cases in which not all relations are acknowledged or when they are
seen differently than intended. Finally, bipolar argumentation frameworks can
be used to express both positive and negative relations between arguments. In
this paper we describe the results of an experiment in which participants
judged dialogues in terms of agreement and structure. We compare our findings
with the aforementioned assumptions as well as with the constellation and
epistemic approaches to probabilistic argumentation and bipolar argumentation
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
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
Weighted logics for artificial intelligence : an introductory discussion
International audienceBefore presenting the contents of the special issue, we propose a structured introductory overview of a landscape of the weighted logics (in a general sense) that can be found in the Artificial Intelligence literature, highlighting their fundamental differences and their application areas
Analysis of Dialogical Argumentation via Finite State Machines
Dialogical argumentation is an important cognitive activity by which agents
exchange arguments and counterarguments as part of some process such as
discussion, debate, persuasion and negotiation. Whilst numerous formal systems
have been proposed, there is a lack of frameworks for implementing and
evaluating these proposals. First-order executable logic has been proposed as a
general framework for specifying and analysing dialogical argumentation. In
this paper, we investigate how we can implement systems for dialogical
argumentation using propositional executable logic. Our approach is to present
and evaluate an algorithm that generates a finite state machine that reflects a
propositional executable logic specification for a dialogical argumentation
together with an initial state. We also consider how the finite state machines
can be analysed, with the minimax strategy being used as an illustration of the
kinds of empirical analysis that can be undertaken.Comment: 10 page
- …