On Learning Attacks in Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Probabilistic argumentation combines the quantitative uncertainty accounted by probability theory with the qualitative uncertainty captured by argumentation. In this paper, we investigate the problem of learning the structure of an argumentative graph to account for (a distribution of) labellings of a set of arguments. We consider a general abstract framework, where the structure of arguments is left unspecified, and we focus on the grounded semantics. We present, with experimental insights, an anytime algorithm evaluating ‘on the fly’ hypothetical attacks from the examination of an input stream of labellings.
منابع مشابه
Probabilistic abstract argumentation: an investigation with Boltzmann machines
Probabilistic argumentation and neuro-argumentative systems offer new computational perspectives for the theory and applications of argumentation, but their principled construction involve two entangled problems. On the one hand, probabilistic argumentation aims at combining the quantitative uncertainty addressed by probability theory with the qualitative uncertainty of argumentation, but proba...
متن کاملOn support relations in abstract argumentation as abstractions of inferential relations
Arguably the significance of an abstract model of argumentation depends on the range of realistic instantiations it allows. This paper therefore investigates for three frameworks for abstract argumentation with support relations whether they can be instantiated with the ASPIC framework for structured argumentation. Both evidential argumentation systems and a simple extension of Dung’s abstract ...
متن کاملGeneralizing Abstract Argumentation with Nested Attacks
In this paper Dung’s abstract argumentation framework (cp. [23]) is being generalized by introducing nested attacks. Attacks are allowed not only on single arguments (e.g. a → b), but on the attacks themselves as well (a → (b → c)). Key terms of Dung’s account of abstract argumentation are adjusted for nested argumentation frameworks (henceforth NAF) in a way which preserves their original mean...
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 کاملOn 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 کامل