On Relating Abstract and Structured Probabilistic Argumentation: A Case Study
نویسنده
چکیده
This paper investigates the relations between Timmer et al.’s proposal for explaining Bayesian networks with structured argumentation and abstract models of probabilistic argumentation. First some challenges are identified for incorporating probabilistic notions of argument strength in structured models of argumentation. Then it is investigated to what extent Timmer et al’s approach meets these challenges and satisfies semantics and rationality conditions for probabilistic argumentation frameworks proposed in the literature. The results are used to draw conclusions about the strengths and limitations of both approaches.
منابع مشابه
On Relating Abstract and Structured Probabilistic Argumentation: a Case Study (corrected version)
This paper investigates the relations between Timmer et al.’s proposal for explaining Bayesian networks with structured argumentation and abstract models of probabilistic argumentation. First some challenges are identified for incorporating probabilistic notions of argument strength in structured models of argumentation. Then it is investigated to what extent Timmer et al’s approach meets these...
متن کاملRelating Carneades with Abstract Argumentation
Carneades is a recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation with varying proof standards. An open question is its relation with Dung’s seminal abstract approach to argumentation. In this paper the two formalisms are formally related by translating Carneades into ASPIC, another recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation. Since ASPIC is defined to generate Dungstyle abst...
متن کاملRelating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation
Carneades is a recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation with varying proof standards, inspired by legal reasoning but more generally applicable. Its distinctive feature is that each statement can be given its own proof standard, which is claimed to allow a more natural account of reasoning under burden of proof than existing formalisms for structured argumentation, in which proo...
متن کاملThesis for the degree of Master of Science Relating proof standards and abstract argumentation
The basic idea of argumentation is to construct arguments in favour of and against a certain statement, selecting the acceptable arguments, and in the end determining which statements hold. To explain how arguments defend their position, they can be structured by their used knowledge and rules. Several approaches to structured argumentation have been developed and subsequently related through a...
متن کاملA Labelling Framework for Probabilistic Argumentation
The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of u...
متن کامل