Logica Universalis

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 345–382

# Probabilistic Argumentation: An Equational Approach

• D. M. Gabbay
• O. Rodrigues
Article

## Abstract

There is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves (1) identifying the basic units which build up the system and (2) introducing the new feature to each of these basic units. In the case where the system is argumentation and the feature is probabilistic we have the following. The basic units are: (a) the nature of the arguments involved; (b) the membership relation in the set S of arguments; (c) the attack relation; and (d) the choice of extensions. Generically to add a new aspect (probabilistic, or fuzzy, or temporal, etc) to an argumentation network $${\langle S,R \rangle}$$ can be done by adding this feature to each component (a–d). This is a brute-force method and may yield a non-intuitive or meaningful result. A better way is to meaningfully translate the object system into another target system which does have the aspect required and then let the target system endow the aspect on the initial system. In our case we translate argumentation into classical propositional logic and get probabilistic argumentation from the translation. Of course what we get depends on how we translate. In fact, in this paper we introduce probabilistic semantics to abstract argumentation theory based on the equational approach to argumentation networks. We then compare our semantics with existing proposals in the literature including the approaches by M. Thimm and by A. Hunter. Our methodology in general is discussed in the conclusion.

## Mathematics Subject Classification

Primary 68T27 Secondary 60B99 68T30

## Keywords

Argumentation probability theory numerical methods

## References

1. 1.
Caminada, M., Gabbay, D.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Studia Logica, 109–145 (2012)Google Scholar
2. 2.
Caminada M., Pigozzi G.: On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation. Auton. Agents Multi Agent Syst. 22(1), 64–102 (2011)
3. 3.
Dung, P.M., Thang, P.: Towards (probabilistic) argumentation for jury-based depute resolution. In: Verheij, B., Szeider, S., Woltran, S. (eds.) Proceedings of COMMA III, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 171–182. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
4. 4.
Gabbay, D.: Logics for Artificial Intelligence and Information Technology. College Publications, (2007)Google Scholar
5. 5.
Gabbay, D.: Equational approach to argumentation networks. Argum. Comput. 87–142 (2012)Google Scholar
6. 6.
Gabbay, D.M. Rodrigues, O.: A self-correcting iteration schema for argumentation networks. In: Parsons, S., Oren, N., Reed, C., Cerutti, F. (eds.) Proceedings of COMMA V, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 377 – 384. IOS Press (2014). doi:
7. 7.
Hunter, A.: Some foundations for probabilistic abstract argumentation. In: Verheij, B., Szeider, S., Woltran, S. (eds.) Proceedings of COMMA IV, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 117–128. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
8. 8.
Hunter A.: A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 54, 47–81 (2013)
9. 9.
Li, H., Oren, N., Norman, T.: Probabilistic argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on the Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA’11), vol. 7132 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, (2012)Google Scholar
10. 10.
Modgil S., Prakken H.: the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: A tutorial. Argum. Comput. 5(1), 31–62 (2014)
11. 11.
Paris, J.B.: The Uncertain Reasoner’s Companion. A Mathematical Perspective. Cambridge University Press (2006)Google Scholar
12. 12.
Pearl, J.: Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems. Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann (1998)Google Scholar
13. 13.
Thimm, M.: A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’12) (2012)Google Scholar