Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Belief in Attacks in Epistemic Probabilistic Argumentation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10564))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation assigns belief to arguments. This is valuable in dialogical argumentation where one agent can model the beliefs another agent has in the arguments and this can be harnessed to make strategic choices of arguments to present. In this paper, we extend this epistemic approach by also representing the belief in attacks. We investigate properties of this proposal and compare it to the constellations approach showing neither subsumes the other.

This research is funded by EPSRC Project EP/N008294/1 “Framework for Computational Persuasion”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/a.hunter/papers/extended_epistemic_full.pdf

References

  1. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: AFRA: argumentation framework with recursive attacks. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 52(1), 19–37 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Vicig, P.: On rationality conditions for epistemic probabilities in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2014. FAIA, vol. 266, pp. 121–132. IOS Press (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brewka, G., Polberg, S., Woltran, S.: Generalizations of Dung frameworks and their role in formal argumentation. IEEE Intell. Syst. 29(1), 30–38 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Caminada, M., Gabbay, D.M.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Stud. Logica. 93, 109–145 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Dondio, P.: Multi-valued and probabilistic argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2014. FAIA, vol. 266, pp. 253–260. IOS Press (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dung, P., Thang, P.: Towards (probabilistic) argumentation for jury-based dispute resolution. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2010. FAIA, vol. 216, pp. 171–182. IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Fazzinga, B., Flesca, S., Parisi, F.: On the complexity of probabilistic abstract argumentation frameworks. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 16(3), 22:1–22:39 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Gabbay, D., Rodrigues, O.: Probabilistic argumentation: an equational approach. Log. Univers. 9(3), 345–382 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Hadoux, E., Hunter, A.: Computationally viable handling of beliefs in arguments for persuasion. In: Proceedings of ICTAI 2016, pp. 319–326. IEEE (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hadoux, E., Hunter, A.: Strategic sequences of arguments for persuasion using decision trees. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2017, pp. 1128–1134. AAAI Press (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hunter, A.: Some foundations for probabilistic abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2012. FAIA, vol. 245, pp. 117–128. IOS Press (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hunter, A.: A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 54(1), 47–81 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Hunter, A.: Modelling the persuadee in asymmetric argumentation dialogues for persuasion. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2015, pp. 3055–3061. AAAI Press (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hunter, A.: Persuasion dialogues via restricted interfaces using probabilistic argumentation. In: Schockaert, S., Senellart, P. (eds.) SUM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9858, pp. 184–198. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45856-4_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Hunter, A., Thimm, M.: Probabilistic argument graphs for argumentation lotteries. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2014. FAIA, vol. 266, pp. 313–324. IOS Press (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hunter, A., Thimm, M.: Probabilistic argumentation with epistemic extensions and incomplete information. Technical report, ArXiv, May 2014

    Google Scholar 

  19. Li, H., Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Probabilistic argumentation frameworks. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Polberg, S., Doder, D.: Probabilistic abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8761, pp. 591–599. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_42

    Google Scholar 

  21. Riveret, R., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G., Prakken, H., Roth, B.: Success chances in argument games: a probabilistic approach to legal disputes. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2007, pp. 99–108. IOS Press (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Thimm, M.: A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2012. FAIA, vol. 242, pp. 750–755. IOS Press (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Timmer, S.T., Meyer, J.-J.C., Prakken, H., Renooij, S., Verheij, B.: Explaining Bayesian networks using argumentation. In: Destercke, S., Denoeux, T. (eds.) ECSQARU 2015. LNCS, vol. 9161, pp. 83–92. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20807-7_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Villata, S., Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Attack semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2011, pp. 406–413. AAAI Press (2011)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University College London, London, UK

    Sylwia Polberg & Anthony Hunter

  2. University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany

    Matthias Thimm

Authors
  1. Sylwia Polberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anthony Hunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthias Thimm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sylwia Polberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Serafín Moral

  2. University of Rennes I, Lannion, France

    Olivier Pivert

  3. University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Daniel Sánchez

  4. University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Nicolás Marín

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Polberg, S., Hunter, A., Thimm, M. (2017). Belief in Attacks in Epistemic Probabilistic Argumentation. In: Moral, S., Pivert, O., Sánchez, D., Marín, N. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10564. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67582-4_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67582-4_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67581-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-67582-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation