Enumerating Preferred Extensions: A Case Study of Human Reasoning
This paper seeks to better understand the links between human reasoning and preferred extensions as found within formal argumentation, especially in the context of uncertainty. The degree of believability of a conclusion may be associated with the number of preferred extensions in which the conclusion is credulously accepted. We are interested in whether people agree with this evaluation. A set of experiments with human participants is presented to investigate the validity of such an association. Our results show that people tend to agree with the outcome of a version of Thimm’s probabilistic semantics in purely qualitative domains as well as in domains in which conclusions express event likelihood. Furthermore, we are able to characterise this behaviour: the heuristics employed by people in understanding preferred extensions are similar to those employed in understanding probabilities.
KeywordsArgumentation Probabilistic semantics User evaluation
This work was partially funded by a grant to the University of Aberdeen made by the UK Economic and Social Research Council; Grant reference ES/MOO1628/1.
- 1.Bailin, S., Battersby, M.: Conductive argumentation, degrees of confidence, and the communication of uncertainty. In: van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B. (eds.) Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. AL, vol. 28, pp. 71–82. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_5 Google Scholar
- 3.Bonzon, E., Delobelle, J., Konieczny, S., Maudet, N.: A comparative study of ranking-based semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 914–920 (2016)Google Scholar
- 5.Cerutti, F., Tintarev, N., Oren, N.: Formal arguments, preferences, and natural language interfaces to humans: an empirical evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 207–212 (2014)Google Scholar
- 10.Hunter, A., Thimm, M.: Probabilistic argument graphs for argumentation lotteries. In: Computational Models of Argument, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 266, pp. 313–324. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
- 12.Mayer, J.M., Schuler, R.P., Jones, Q.: Towards an understanding of social inference opportunities in social computing. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 239–248 (2012)Google Scholar
- 16.Thimm, M.: A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 750–755 (2012)Google Scholar