On Rationality Conditions for Epistemic Probabilities in Abstract Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Epistemic probabilities in argumentation frameworks are meant to represent subjective degrees of belief in the acceptance of arguments. As such, they are subject to some rationality conditions, taking into account the attack relation between arguments. This paper provides an advancement with respect to the previous literature on this matter by casting epistemic probabilities in the context of de Finetti’s theory of subjective probability and by analyzing and revising the relevant rationality properties in relation with de Finetti’s notion of coherence. Further, we consider the extension to Walley’s theory of imprecise probabilities and carry out a preliminary analysis about rationality conditions in this more general context.
منابع مشابه
On Relating Abstract and Structured Probabilistic Argumentation: a Case Study (corrected version)
This paper investigates the relations between Timmer et al.’s proposal for explaining Bayesian networks with structured argumentation and abstract models of probabilistic argumentation. First some challenges are identified for incorporating probabilistic notions of argument strength in structured models of argumentation. Then it is investigated to what extent Timmer et al’s approach meets these...
متن کاملOn Relating Abstract and Structured Probabilistic Argumentation: A Case Study
This paper investigates the relations between Timmer et al.’s proposal for explaining Bayesian networks with structured argumentation and abstract models of probabilistic argumentation. First some challenges are identified for incorporating probabilistic notions of argument strength in structured models of argumentation. Then it is investigated to what extent Timmer et al’s approach meets these...
متن کاملRationality in the Epistemic Geometry of Hujurat Surah Commentary
The conflict between rationality and devotion is rooted from an inappropriate comprehension about status of reason in epistemic system of religion and also being unfamiliar with pure and vital educations. Although some of the educations from the Divine Book have devotional prospects and are out of the reach of conventional reason, pondering in verses indicates that this does not mean digressing...
متن کاملReasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks
This paper combines two recent extensions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks in order to define an abstract formalism for reasoning about preferences in structured argumentation frameworks. First, extended argumentation frameworks extend Dung frameworks with attacks on attacks, thus providing an abstract dialectical semantics that accommodates argumentation-based reasoning about prefer...
متن کاملArgument-based Belief in Topological Structures
This paper combines two studies: a topological semantics for epistemic notions and abstract argumentation theory. In our combined setting, we use a topological semantics to represent the structure of an agent’s collection of evidence, and we use argumentation theory to single out the relevant sets of evidence through which a notion of beliefs grounded on arguments is defined. We discuss the for...
متن کامل