Probabilistic Argumentation with Epistemic Extensions
نویسندگان
چکیده
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.
منابع مشابه
Probabilistic Argumentation with Epistemic Extensions and Incomplete Information
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 o...
متن کاملBelief in Attacks in Epistemic Probabilistic Argumentation
The epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation assigns belief to arguments. This is valuable in dialogical argumentation where one agent can model the beliefs another agent has in the arguments and this can be harnessed to make strategic choices of arguments to present. In this paper, we extend this epistemic approach by also representing the belief in attacks. We investigate properties ...
متن کاملWorking Papers of the IJCAI - 2015 Workshop on Weighted Logics for Artificial Intelligence WL 4 AI - 2015 July 27 , 2015 Buenos Aires ( Argentina )
Argumentation can be modelled at an abstract level using an argument graph (i.e. a directed graph where each node denotes an argument and each arc denotes an attack by one argument on another). Since argumentation involves uncertainty, it is potentially valuable to consider how this can quantified in argument graphs. In this talk, we will consider two probabilistic approaches for modeling uncer...
متن کاملExtending probabilistic dynamic epistemic logic
This paper aims to extend in two directions the probabilistic dynamic epistemic logic provided in Kooi’s paper [7] and to relate these extensions to ones made in [10]. Kooi’s probabilistic dynamic epistemic logic adds to probabilistic epistemic logic sentences that express consequences of public announcements. The paper [10] extends [7] to using action models, but in both papers, the probabilit...
متن کاملEmpirical evaluation of abstract argumentation: Supporting the need for bipolar and probabilistic approaches
In dialogical argumentation, it is often assumed that the involved parties will always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other and realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views whenever new and correct information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is suff...
متن کامل