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

Belief Revision in Structured Probabilistic Argumentation

In real-world applications, knowledge bases consisting of all the information at hand for a specific domain, along with the current state of affairs, are bound to contain contradictory data coming from different sources, as well as data with varying degrees of uncertainty attached. Likewise, an important aspect of the effort associated with maintaining knowledge bases is deciding what information is no longer useful; pieces of information (such as intelligence reports) may be outdated, may come from sources that have recently been discovered to be of low quality, or abundant evidence may be available that contradicts them. In this paper, we propose a probabilistic structured argumentation framework that arises from the extension of Presumptive Defeasible Logic Programming (PreDeLP) with probabilistic models, and argue that this formalism is capable of addressing the basic issues of handling contradictory and uncertain data. Then, to address the last issue, we focus on the study of non-prioritized belief revision operations over probabilistic PreDeLP programs. We propose a set of rationality postulates -- based on well-known ones developed for classical knowledge bases -- that characterize how such operations should behave, and study a class of operators along with theoretical relationships with the proposed postulates, including a representation theorem stating the equivalence between this class and the class of operators characterized by the postulates

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

Analysing product reviews using probabilistic argumentation

Product reviews which are increasingly commonplace on the web typically contain a textual component and a numerical rating. The textual component can be viewed as a collection of arguments for and against the product. Whilst the reviewer may not have provided the attacks between these arguments they typically provide an indication of which set of arguments they view as being more acceptable/winning via the numerical rating (i.e. a positive rating indicates that the positive arguments are accepted and vice versa). Our framework builds upon this intuition and we propose a two step process for identifying a probability distribution over the set of possible argument graphs that the reviewer may have had in mind. The first is the identification step in which for a given review, we identify a distribution by analysing the relationship between the rating and polarity of arguments in the review via the constellations approach to probabilistic argumentation. The second step is the refinement step in which we harness ratings from multiple reviews and use this to refine our probability distribution thus enabling us to learn from the data. We illustrate the applicability of our approach by testing it with real data

Probabilistic Argumentation for Patient Decision Making

Medical drug reviews are increasingly commonplace on the web and have become an important source of information for patients undergoing medical treatment. Patients will look to these reviews in order to understand the impact the drugs have had on others who have experienced them. In short these reviews can be interpreted as a body of arguments and counterarguments for/against the drug being reviewed. One of the challenges of reading these reviews is drawing out the arguments easily and forming a final opinion; this is due to the number of reviews and the variety of arguments presented. This thesis explores the use of computational models of argumentation in order to extract structured argumentation data from the reviews and present them to the user. In particular I propose a pipeline that performs argument extraction, argument graph extraction and visualisation

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