Empirical evaluation of abstract argumentation: supporting the need for bipolar and probabilistic approaches
From MaRDI portal
Publication:1726415
Abstract: In dialogical argumentation it is often assumed that the involved parties always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other, realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views when new and correct information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is sufficient to represent their opinions. Although it is natural to make these assumptions as a starting point for further research, removing them or even acknowledging that such removal should happen is more challenging for some of these concepts than for others. Probabilistic argumentation is one of the approaches that can be harnessed for more accurate user modelling. The epistemic approach allows us to represent how much a given argument is believed by a given person, offering us the possibility to express more than just three agreement states. It is equipped with a wide range of postulates, including those that do not make any restrictions concerning how initial arguments should be viewed, thus potentially being more adequate for handling beliefs of the people that have not fully disclosed their opinions in comparison to Dung's semantics. The constellation approach can be used to represent the views of different people concerning the structure of the framework we are dealing with, including cases in which not all relations are acknowledged or when they are seen differently than intended. Finally, bipolar argumentation frameworks can be used to express both positive and negative relations between arguments. In this paper we describe the results of an experiment in which participants judged dialogues in terms of agreement and structure. We compare our findings with the aforementioned assumptions as well as with the constellation and epistemic approaches to probabilistic argumentation and bipolar argumentation.
Recommendations
Cites work
- A logical account of formal argumentation
- A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments
- A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation
- AFRA: argumentation framework with recursive attacks
- An axiomatic approach to support in argumentation
- Arguing with valued preference relations
- Belief in attacks in epistemic probabilistic argumentation
- Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding
- Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: adding an argument
- Coalitions of arguments: a tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks
- Computational models of argument (COMMA 2010). Proceedings of 3rd conference, Desanzano del Garda, Italy, September 2010.
- Inference from Controversial Arguments
- On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks
- On support relations in abstract argumentation as abstractions of inferential relations
- On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games
- On the complexity of probabilistic abstract argumentation frameworks
- On the merging of Dung's argumentation systems
- Probabilistic abstract dialectical frameworks
- Probabilistic reasoning with abstract argumentation frameworks
- Toward a computational analysis of probabilistic argumentation frameworks
- Understanding the abstract dialectical framework
Cited in
(17)- Probabilistic causal bipolar abstract argumentation: an approach based on credal networks
- Computational complexity of flat and generic assumption-based argumentation, with and without probabilities
- Credulous acceptance in high-order argumentation frameworks with necessities: an incremental approach
- Realizability of three-valued semantics for abstract dialectical frameworks
- An interleaving semantics of the timed concurrent language for argumentation to model debates and dialogue games
- An empirical and axiomatic comparison of ranking-based semantics for abstract argumentation
- Forecasting with jury-based probabilistic argumentation
- Argument strength in probabilistic argumentation based on defeasible rules
- Explainable acceptance in probabilistic and incomplete abstract argumentation frameworks
- Argument strength in probabilistic argumentation using confirmation theory
- Generalizing complete semantics to bipolar argumentation frameworks
- On searching explanatory argumentation graphs
- Evaluation of argument strength in attack graphs: foundations and semantics
- Delegated updates in epistemic graphs for opponent modelling
- Epistemic graphs for representing and reasoning with positive and negative influences of arguments
- Syntactic reasoning with conditional probabilities in deductive argumentation
- Renovation sets and their applications in higher-order argumentation frameworks
This page was built for publication: Empirical evaluation of abstract argumentation: supporting the need for bipolar and probabilistic approaches
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q1726415)
