Advertisement

Argumentation and Qualitative Probabilistic Reasoning Using the Kappa Calculus

  • Valentina Tamma
  • Simon Parsons
Conference paper
  • 536 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2143)

Abstract

This paper presents the QRK system for reasoning under uncertainty, which combines the building of logical arguments for formulae with infinitesimal probabilities of the kind handled by the kappa calculus. Each constituent of an argument has an associated κ-value which captures belief in that component, and these values are combined when arguments are constructed from the components. The paper is an extension of our previous work on systems of argumentation which reason with qualitative probabilities, providing a finer-grained approach to handling uncertainty.

Keywords

Logical Argument Proof Rule Default Reasoning Probabilistic Network Handling Uncertainty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, and H. Prade. Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Darwiche and M. Goldszmidt. On the relation between kappa calculus and probabilistic reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. J. Druzdzel. Probabilistic reasoning in decision support systems: from computation to common sense. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Fox. A unified framework for hypothetical and practical reasoning (2): lessons from clinical medicine. In Proceedings of the Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. H. Giang and P. P. Shenoy. On transformations between probability and Spoh-nian disbelief functions. In K. B. Laskey and H. Prade, editors, Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 236–244, San Francisco, CA, 1999. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Goldszmidt and J. Pearl. Qualitative probabilistic for default reasoning, belief revision, and causal modelling. Artificial Intelligence, 84(1–2):57–112, 1996.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Jeffrey. The logic of decision. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 2nd edition, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Loui. Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence, 3:100–106, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Parsons. A proof theoretic approach to qualitative probabilistic reasoning. International Journal od Approximate Reasoning, 19:265–297, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Parsons. Qualitative approaches to reasoning under uncertainty. MIT Press, (to appear), Cambridge, MA, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Pearl. From conditional oughts to qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. Spohn. Ordinal conditional functions: A dynamic theory of epistemic states. In W.L. Harper and B. Skyrms, editors, Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, volume 2, pages 105–134. 1987.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. P. Wellman. Formulation of tradeoffs in planning under uncertainty. Pitman, London, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Wilson. An order of magnitude calculus. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valentina Tamma
    • 1
  • Simon Parsons
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations