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

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

Understanding Enthymemes in Deductive Argumentation using Semantic Distance Measures

An argument can be regarded as some premises and a claim following from those premises. Normally, arguments exchanged by human agents are enthymemes, which generally means that some premises are implicit. So when an enthymeme is presented, the presenter expects that the recipient can identify the missing premises. An important kind of implicitness arises when a presenter assumes that two symbols denote the same, or nearly the same, concept (e.g. dad and father), and uses the symbols interchangeably. To model this process, we propose the use of semantic distance measures (e.g. based on a vector representation of word embeddings or a semantic network representation of words) to determine whether one symbol can be substituted by another. We present a theoretical framework for using substitutions, together with abduction of default knowledge, for understanding enthymemes based on deductive argumentation, and investigate how this could be used in practice

Syntactic Reasoning with Conditional Probabilities in Deductive Argumentation

Evidence from studies, such as in science or medicine, often corresponds to conditional probability statements. Furthermore, evidence can conflict, in particular when coming from multiple studies. Whilst it is natural to make sense of such evidence using arguments, there is a lack of a systematic formalism for representing and reasoning with conditional probability statements in computational argumentation. We address this shortcoming by providing a formalization of conditional probabilistic argumentation based on probabilistic conditional logic. We provide a semantics and a collection of comprehensible inference rules that give different insights into evidence. We show how arguments constructed from proofs and attacks between them can be analyzed as arguments graphs using dialectical semantics and via the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation. Our approach allows for a transparent and systematic way of handling uncertainty that often arises in evidence

Impact of Argument Type and Concerns in Argumentation with a Chatbot

Conversational agents, also known as chatbots, are versatile tools that have the potential of being used in dialogical argumentation. They could possibly be deployed in tasks such as persuasion for behaviour change (e.g. persuading people to eat more fruit, to take regular exercise, etc.) However, to achieve this, there is a need to develop methods for acquiring appropriate arguments and counterargument that reflect both sides of the discussion. For instance, to persuade someone to do regular exercise, the chatbot needs to know counterarguments that the user might have for not doing exercise. To address this need, we present methods for acquiring arguments and counterarguments, and importantly, meta-level information that can be useful for deciding when arguments can be used during an argumentation dialogue. We evaluate these methods in studies with participants and show how harnessing these methods in a chatbot can make it more persuasive