King's College London

Research portal

Probabilistic argumentation: An equational approach

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Probabilistic argumentation: An equational approach. / Rodrigues, Odinaldo Teixeira; Gabbay, Dov M.

In: Logica Universalis, Vol. 9, No. 3, 09.2015, p. 345.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Rodrigues, OT & Gabbay, DM 2015, 'Probabilistic argumentation: An equational approach', Logica Universalis, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-015-0120-1

APA

Rodrigues, O. T., & Gabbay, D. M. (2015). Probabilistic argumentation: An equational approach. Logica Universalis, 9(3), 345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-015-0120-1

Vancouver

Rodrigues OT, Gabbay DM. Probabilistic argumentation: An equational approach. Logica Universalis. 2015 Sep;9(3):345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-015-0120-1

Author

Rodrigues, Odinaldo Teixeira ; Gabbay, Dov M. / Probabilistic argumentation: An equational approach. In: Logica Universalis. 2015 ; Vol. 9, No. 3. pp. 345.

Bibtex Download

@article{c93d472a124f4c0c855448f40b6ff540,
title = "Probabilistic argumentation: An equational approach",
abstract = "There is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves (1) identifying the basic units which build up the system and (2) introducing the new feature to each of these basic units. In the case where the system is argumentation and the feature is probabilistic we have the following. The basic units are: (a) the nature of the arguments involved; (b) the membership relation in the set S of arguments; (c) the attack relation; and (d) the choice of extensions. Generically to add a new aspect (probabilistic, or fuzzy, or temporal, etc) to an argumentation network ⟨S,R⟩ can be done by adding this feature to each component (a–d). This is a brute-force method and may yield a non-intuitive or meaningful result. A better way is to meaningfully translate the object system into another target system which does have the aspect required and then let the target system endow the aspect on the initial system. In our case we translate argumentation into classical propositional logic and get probabilistic argumentation from the translation. Of course what we get depends on how we translate. In fact, in this paper we introduce probabilistic semantics to abstract argumentation theory based on the equational approach to argumentation networks. We then compare our semantics with existing proposals in the literature including the approaches by M. Thimm and by A. Hunter. Our methodology in general is discussed in the conclusion.",
keywords = "probability, argumentation, numerical methods",
author = "Rodrigues, {Odinaldo Teixeira} and Gabbay, {Dov M}",
year = "2015",
month = sep,
doi = "10.1007/s11787-015-0120-1",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "345",
journal = "Logica Universalis",
issn = "1661-8297",
publisher = "Birkhauser Verlag Basel",
number = "3",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Probabilistic argumentation: An equational approach

AU - Rodrigues, Odinaldo Teixeira

AU - Gabbay, Dov M

PY - 2015/9

Y1 - 2015/9

N2 - There is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves (1) identifying the basic units which build up the system and (2) introducing the new feature to each of these basic units. In the case where the system is argumentation and the feature is probabilistic we have the following. The basic units are: (a) the nature of the arguments involved; (b) the membership relation in the set S of arguments; (c) the attack relation; and (d) the choice of extensions. Generically to add a new aspect (probabilistic, or fuzzy, or temporal, etc) to an argumentation network ⟨S,R⟩ can be done by adding this feature to each component (a–d). This is a brute-force method and may yield a non-intuitive or meaningful result. A better way is to meaningfully translate the object system into another target system which does have the aspect required and then let the target system endow the aspect on the initial system. In our case we translate argumentation into classical propositional logic and get probabilistic argumentation from the translation. Of course what we get depends on how we translate. In fact, in this paper we introduce probabilistic semantics to abstract argumentation theory based on the equational approach to argumentation networks. We then compare our semantics with existing proposals in the literature including the approaches by M. Thimm and by A. Hunter. Our methodology in general is discussed in the conclusion.

AB - There is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves (1) identifying the basic units which build up the system and (2) introducing the new feature to each of these basic units. In the case where the system is argumentation and the feature is probabilistic we have the following. The basic units are: (a) the nature of the arguments involved; (b) the membership relation in the set S of arguments; (c) the attack relation; and (d) the choice of extensions. Generically to add a new aspect (probabilistic, or fuzzy, or temporal, etc) to an argumentation network ⟨S,R⟩ can be done by adding this feature to each component (a–d). This is a brute-force method and may yield a non-intuitive or meaningful result. A better way is to meaningfully translate the object system into another target system which does have the aspect required and then let the target system endow the aspect on the initial system. In our case we translate argumentation into classical propositional logic and get probabilistic argumentation from the translation. Of course what we get depends on how we translate. In fact, in this paper we introduce probabilistic semantics to abstract argumentation theory based on the equational approach to argumentation networks. We then compare our semantics with existing proposals in the literature including the approaches by M. Thimm and by A. Hunter. Our methodology in general is discussed in the conclusion.

KW - probability

KW - argumentation

KW - numerical methods

U2 - 10.1007/s11787-015-0120-1

DO - 10.1007/s11787-015-0120-1

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 345

JO - Logica Universalis

JF - Logica Universalis

SN - 1661-8297

IS - 3

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454