Refining a Heuristic for Constructing Bayesian Networks from Structured Arguments
- 1.4k Downloads
Abstract
Recently, a heuristic was proposed for constructing Bayesian networks (BNs) from structured arguments. This heuristic helps domain experts who are accustomed to argumentation to transform their reasoning into a BN and subsequently weigh their case evidence in a probabilistic manner. While the underlying undirected graph of the BN is automatically constructed by following the heuristic, the arc directions are to be set manually by a BN engineer in consultation with the domain expert. As the knowledge elicitation involved is known to be time-consuming, it is of value to (partly) automate this step. We propose a refinement of the heuristic to this end, which specifies the directions in which arcs are to be set given specific conditions on structured arguments.
Keywords
Bayesian Networks Structured argumentationReferences
- 1.Bex, F., Renooij, S.: From arguments to constraints on a Bayesian network. In: Baroni, P., Gordon, T.F., Scheffler, T., Stede, M. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2016, pp. 95–106. IOS Press, The Netherlands (2016)Google Scholar
- 2.Fenton, N., Neil, M.: Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Networks. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 3.Jensen, F.V., Nielsen, T.D.: Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs, 2nd edn. Springer Verlag, Berlin (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 4.Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum. Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Shachter, R.D.: A graph-based inference method for conditional independence. In: D’Ambrosio, B.D., Smets, P., Bonissone, P.P. (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 353–360. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Mateo (1991)Google Scholar
- 6.Timmer, S.T., Meyer, J.-J.C., Prakken, H., Renooij, S., Verheij, B.: A two-phase method for extracting explanatory arguments from Bayesian networks. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 80, 475–494 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 7.van der Gaag, L.C., Helsper, E.M.: Experiences with modelling issues in building probabilistic networks. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 21–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45810-7_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.van der Gaag, L.C., Meyer, J.-J.C.: The dynamics of probabilistic structural relevance. In: van der Gaag, L.C., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (NAIC’96), pp. 145–156. Utrecht University, Utrecht (1996)Google Scholar
- 9.Verheij, B., Bex, F., Timmer, S.T., Vlek, C.S., Meyer, J.-J.C., Renooij, S., Prakken, H.: Arguments, scenarios and probabilities: connections between three normative frameworks for evidential reasoning. Law Probab. Risk 15(1), 35–70 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Verma, T., Pearl, J.: Equivalence and synthesis of causal models. In: Bonissone, P.P., Henrion, M., Kanal, L.N., Lemmer, J.F. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 255–270. Elsevier Science Inc., New York (1991)Google Scholar
- 11.Wellman, M.P., Henrion, M.: Explaining “explaining away”. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 15(3), 287–292 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar