We present a probabilistic interpretation of the plausibility of attacks in abstract argumentation frameworks by extending the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation with probabilities on attacks. By doing so we also generalise the previously proposed attack semantics by Villata et al. to the probabilistic setting and provide a fine-grained assessment of the plausibility of attacks. We also consider the setting where partial probabilistic information on arguments and/or attacks is given and missing probabilities have to be derived
In this paper we analyze probabilistic argumentation frameworks (PAFs), defined as an extension of D...
Structured argumentation involves drawing inferences from knowledge in order to construct arguments ...
The web is a source of a large amount of arguments and their acceptability statuses (e.g., votes for...
We present a probabilistic interpretation of the plausibility of attacks in abstract argumentation f...
The epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation assigns belief to arguments. This is valuable ...
Combining computational models of argumentation with probability theory has recently gained increasi...
In this paper I present a proposal on how to conceptualise and handle probabilistic arguments in an ...
The aim of the paper is to develop general criteria of argumentative validity and adequacy for proba...
Abstract. Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating arguments an...
We present an interdisciplinary approach to study systematic relations between logical form and atta...
Epistemic probabilities in argumentation frameworks are meant to represent subjective degrees of bel...
In this paper we introduce a new set of general principles for probabilistic abstract argumentation....
Probabilistic epistemic argumentation allows for reasoning about argumentation problems in a way tha...
Gradual semantics are methods that evaluate overall strengths of individual arguments in graphs. In ...
In this paper we analyze probabilistic argumentation frameworks (PAFs), defined as an extension of D...
Structured argumentation involves drawing inferences from knowledge in order to construct arguments ...
The web is a source of a large amount of arguments and their acceptability statuses (e.g., votes for...
We present a probabilistic interpretation of the plausibility of attacks in abstract argumentation f...
The epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation assigns belief to arguments. This is valuable ...
Combining computational models of argumentation with probability theory has recently gained increasi...
In this paper I present a proposal on how to conceptualise and handle probabilistic arguments in an ...
The aim of the paper is to develop general criteria of argumentative validity and adequacy for proba...
Abstract. Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating arguments an...
We present an interdisciplinary approach to study systematic relations between logical form and atta...
Epistemic probabilities in argumentation frameworks are meant to represent subjective degrees of bel...
In this paper we introduce a new set of general principles for probabilistic abstract argumentation....
Probabilistic epistemic argumentation allows for reasoning about argumentation problems in a way tha...
Gradual semantics are methods that evaluate overall strengths of individual arguments in graphs. In ...
In this paper we analyze probabilistic argumentation frameworks (PAFs), defined as an extension of D...
Structured argumentation involves drawing inferences from knowledge in order to construct arguments ...
The web is a source of a large amount of arguments and their acceptability statuses (e.g., votes for...