Abstract
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 of this proposal and compare it to the constellations approach showing neither subsumes the other.
This research is funded by EPSRC Project EP/N008294/1 “Framework for Computational Persuasion”.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)
Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: AFRA: argumentation framework with recursive attacks. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 52(1), 19–37 (2011)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Vicig, P.: On rationality conditions for epistemic probabilities in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2014. FAIA, vol. 266, pp. 121–132. IOS Press (2014)
Brewka, G., Polberg, S., Woltran, S.: Generalizations of Dung frameworks and their role in formal argumentation. IEEE Intell. Syst. 29(1), 30–38 (2014)
Caminada, M., Gabbay, D.M.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Stud. Logica. 93, 109–145 (2009)
Dondio, P.: Multi-valued and probabilistic argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2014. FAIA, vol. 266, pp. 253–260. IOS Press (2014)
Dung, P., Thang, P.: Towards (probabilistic) argumentation for jury-based dispute resolution. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2010. FAIA, vol. 216, pp. 171–182. IOS Press (2010)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)
Fazzinga, B., Flesca, S., Parisi, F.: On the complexity of probabilistic abstract argumentation frameworks. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 16(3), 22:1–22:39 (2015)
Gabbay, D., Rodrigues, O.: Probabilistic argumentation: an equational approach. Log. Univers. 9(3), 345–382 (2015)
Hadoux, E., Hunter, A.: Computationally viable handling of beliefs in arguments for persuasion. In: Proceedings of ICTAI 2016, pp. 319–326. IEEE (2016)
Hadoux, E., Hunter, A.: Strategic sequences of arguments for persuasion using decision trees. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2017, pp. 1128–1134. AAAI Press (2017)
Hunter, A.: Some foundations for probabilistic abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2012. FAIA, vol. 245, pp. 117–128. IOS Press (2012)
Hunter, A.: A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 54(1), 47–81 (2013)
Hunter, A.: Modelling the persuadee in asymmetric argumentation dialogues for persuasion. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2015, pp. 3055–3061. AAAI Press (2015)
Hunter, A.: Persuasion dialogues via restricted interfaces using probabilistic argumentation. In: Schockaert, S., Senellart, P. (eds.) SUM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9858, pp. 184–198. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45856-4_13
Hunter, A., Thimm, M.: Probabilistic argument graphs for argumentation lotteries. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2014. FAIA, vol. 266, pp. 313–324. IOS Press (2014)
Hunter, A., Thimm, M.: Probabilistic argumentation with epistemic extensions and incomplete information. Technical report, Ar**v, May 2014
Li, H., Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Probabilistic argumentation frameworks. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_1
Polberg, S., Doder, D.: Probabilistic abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8761, pp. 591–599. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_42
Riveret, R., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G., Prakken, H., Roth, B.: Success chances in argument games: a probabilistic approach to legal disputes. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2007, pp. 99–108. IOS Press (2007)
Thimm, M.: A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2012. FAIA, vol. 242, pp. 750–755. IOS Press (2012)
Timmer, S.T., Meyer, J.-J.C., Prakken, H., Renooij, S., Verheij, B.: Explaining Bayesian networks using argumentation. In: Destercke, S., Denoeux, T. (eds.) ECSQARU 2015. LNCS, vol. 9161, pp. 83–92. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20807-7_8
Villata, S., Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Attack semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2011, pp. 406–413. AAAI Press (2011)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Polberg, S., Hunter, A., Thimm, M. (2017). Belief in Attacks in Epistemic Probabilistic Argumentation. In: Moral, S., Pivert, O., Sánchez, D., Marín, N. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10564. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67582-4_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67582-4_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67581-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-67582-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)