Quantifying disagreement in argument-based reasoning
نویسندگان
چکیده
An argumentation framework can be seen as expressing, in an abstract way, the conflicting information of an underlying logical knowledge base. This conflicting information often allows for the presence of more than one possible reasonable position (extension/labelling) which one can take. A relevant question, therefore, is how much these positions differ from each other. In the current paper, we will examine the issue of how to define meaningful measures of distance between the (complete) labellings of a given argumentation framework. We provide concrete distance measures based on argument-wise label difference, as well as based on the notion of critical sets, and examine their properties.
منابع مشابه
Persuasion and Value in Legal Argument
In this paper we consider legal reasoning as a species of practical reasoning. As such it is important both that arguments are considered in the context of competing, attacking and supporting arguments, and that the possibility of rational disagreement is accommodated. We present two formal frameworks for considering systems of arguments: the standard framework of Dung, and an extension which r...
متن کاملIdentifying Audience Preferences in Legal and Social Domains
Reasoning in legal and social domains appears not to be well dealt with by deductive approaches. This is because such reasoning is open-endedly defeasible, and because the various argument schemes used in these domains are often hard to construe as deductive arguments. In consequence, argumentation frameworks have proved increasingly popular for modelling disputes in such domains. In order to c...
متن کاملWhy Believe That There Is a God?
This article presents an argument for the existence of God, showing that the evident phenomena are best explained by supposing that a God causes them. The argument is based on the inductive force of four very evident general phenomena: that there is a physical Universe; that it is governed by very simple natural laws; that those laws are such as to lead to the existence of human bodies; and tha...
متن کاملPersuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks
In many cases of disagreement, particularly in situations involving practical reasoning, it is impossible to demonstrate conclusively that either party is wrong. The role of argument in such cases is to persuade rather than to prove, demonstrate or refute. Following Perelman, we argue that persuasion in such cases relies on a recognition that the strength of an argument depends on the social va...
متن کاملUsing values and theories to resolve disagreement in law
In this paper we describe a novel approach to reasoning with cases and precedents. The approach is intended to address two main problems. First we find that current case based reasoning systems tend to offer relatively little support in determining the outcome of a case. They either present a list of cases which may inform, but cannot determine, the outcome, or else, as in HYPO and its successo...
متن کامل