Composite Argumentation Systems with ML Components
نویسندگان
چکیده
Today AI systems are rarely made without Machine Learning (ML) and this inspires us to explore what aptly called composite argumentation with ML components. Concretely, against two theoretical backdrops of PABA (Probabilistic Assumption-based Argumentation) DST (Dempster-Shafer Theory), we present a framework for such c-PABA. It is argued that c-PABA lends itself development tool as well demonstrate show DST-based classifier combination multi-source data fusion can be implemented simple frameworks.
منابع مشابه
Argumentation Systems with Social Voting
One of the main uses of the Internet is global communication. Within communication we find the more specific case of debate. In fact, there are entire online communities that do not consider it as merely a component, but as their very core. Such communities usually incorporate a voting mechanism allowing the user base to decide the winner. The existing mechanisms of online debating systems are ...
متن کاملComparing Argumentation Frameworks for Composite Ontology Matching
Resolving the semantic heterogeneity problem is crucial to allow interoperability between ontology-based systems. Ontology matching based on argumentation is an innovative research area that aims at solving this issue, where agents encapsulate different matching techniques and the distinct mapping results are shared, compared, chosen and agreed. In this paper, we compare three argumentation fra...
متن کاملAn Implementation of Basic Argumentation Components (Demonstration)
The current implementation provides a demonstration of a number of basic argumentation components that can be applied in the context of multi-agent systems. These components include algorithms for calculating argumentation semantics, as well as for determining the justification status of the arguments and providing explanation in the form of formal discussion games. Furthermore, the current dem...
متن کاملFrom systems for defeasible argumentation to dialogical systems of argumentation
Nonmonotonic reasoning is a reasoning in which temporary conclusions can be drawn on the basis of incomplete information but which might be withdrawn when more information becomes available. Systems for defeasible argumentation capture this kind of reasoning in terms of interactions between conflictual arguments. Nonmonotonic reasoning is explained in terms of defeasibility since arguments can ...
متن کاملProbabilistic Argumentation Systems with Decision Variables
The general concept of probabilistic argumentation systems PAS is restricted to the two types of variables: assumptions, which model the uncertain part of the knowledge, and propositions, which model the rest of the information. Here, we introduce a third kind into PAS: so-called decision variables. This new kind allows to describe the decisions a user can make to react on some state of the sys...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications
سال: 2022
ISSN: ['1879-8314', '0922-6389']
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/faia220150