Get our free extension to see links to code for papers anywhere online!

Chrome logo Add to Chrome

Firefox logo Add to Firefox

Probabilistic Argumentation with Epistemic Extensions and Incomplete Information

May 14, 2014
Anthony Hunter, Matthias Thimm

Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating arguments and counterarguments. This approach can be enhanced by a probability assignment to each argument. There are various interpretations that can be ascribed to this assignment. In this paper, we regard the assignment as denoting the belief that an agent has that an argument is justifiable, i.e., that both the premises of the argument and the derivation of the claim of the argument from its premises are valid. This leads to the notion of an epistemic extension which is the subset of the arguments in the graph that are believed to some degree (which we defined as the arguments that have a probability assignment greater than 0.5). We consider various constraints on the probability assignment. Some constraints correspond to standard notions of extensions, such as grounded or stable extensions, and some constraints give us new kinds of extensions.

Share this with someone who'll enjoy it:

   Access Paper Source

Share this with someone who'll enjoy it: