Abstract
In this paper we analyze probabilistic argumentation frameworks PAF, defined as an extension of Dung abstract framework in which each argument n is asserted with a probability p n and where an argumentation semantics is used to compute arguments’ status. We start by extending recent definitions of PAF removing the hypothesis of arguments independence, extending the computation to preferred semantics and defining the distribution of various probabilities induced over arguments acceptability status. We then prove some basic properties linking grounded and preferred PAF and we describe the first algorithm to compute the probability of acceptance of each argument. We end our work with an application of PAF to legal reasoning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Claudette, C., Caroline, D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Acceptability semantics accounting for strength of attacks in argumentation. In: 19th ECAI, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 995–996 (2010)
Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Dung, P., Thang, P.: Towards (Probabilistic) Argumentation for Jury-based Dispute Resolution. In: COMMA 2010, pp. 171–182. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)
Li, H., Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7132, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Grabmair, M., Gordon, T., Walton, D.: Probabilistic Semantics for the Carneades Argument Model Using Bayesian Networks. In: Baroni, P., et al. (eds.) Proc. of COMMA 2010, pp. 255–266. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)
Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowledge Eng. Review 26(4), 365–410 (2011)
Barringer, H., Gabbay, D., Woods, J.: Temporal dynamics of support and attack networks: From argumentation to zoology. In: Hutter, D., Stephan, W. (eds.) Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2605, pp. 59–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artificial Intelligence 133(1-2), 233–282 (2001)
Dunne, P., et al.: Inconsistency Tolerance in Weighted Argument Systems. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS 2009, pp. 851–858. ACM Press (2009)
Martinez, D.C., Garcia, A.J.: An abstract argumentation framework with varied-strength attacks. In: Proc. of KR, pp. 135–143 (2008)
Hunter, A.: A probabilistic approach to modeling uncertain logical arguments. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 54(1), 47–81 (2013)
Thimm, M.: Probabilistic Semantics for Abstract Argumentation. In: Proceedings of 20th European Conference of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 750–755. IOS Press (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Dondio, P. (2013). Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks: Basic Properties and Computation. In: Corchado, J.M., et al. Highlights on Practical Applications of Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. PAAMS 2013. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 365. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38061-7_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38061-7_26
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-38060-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-38061-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)