We present an interdisciplinary approach to study systematic relations between logical form and attacks between claims in an argumentative framework. We propose to generalize qualitative attack principles by quantitative ones. Specifically, we use coherent conditional probabilities to evaluate the rationality of principles which govern the strength of argumentative attacks. Finally, we present an experiment which explores the psychological plausibility of selected attack principles
In this paper we analyze probabilistic argumentation frameworks (PAFs), defined as an extension of D...
We consider argumentation systems taking into account several attack relations of different strength...
We propose a logical encoding of extended abstract argumentation frameworks, that is frameworks with...
We present an interdisciplinary approach to study systematic relations between logical form and atta...
We present a probabilistic interpretation of the plausibility of attacks in abstract argumentation f...
Evidence from studies, such as in science or medicine, often corresponds to conditional probability ...
AbstractArgumentation in the sense of a process of logical reasoning is a very intuitive and general...
Epistemic probabilities in argumentation frameworks are meant to represent subjective degrees of bel...
peer reviewedThere is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves (1) identifying ...
Faber W., Friedrich G., Gebser M., Morak M. (eds)A basic form of an instantiated argument is as a pa...
We explore systematic connections between weighted (semi-abstract) argumentation frames and t-norm-b...
International audienceThe paper presents a parallel between two important theories for the treatment...
Gradual semantics are methods that evaluate overall strengths of individual arguments in graphs. In ...
The epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation as- signs belief to arguments. This is valuabl...
According to the Bayesian paradigm in the psychology of reasoning, the norms by which everyday human...
In this paper we analyze probabilistic argumentation frameworks (PAFs), defined as an extension of D...
We consider argumentation systems taking into account several attack relations of different strength...
We propose a logical encoding of extended abstract argumentation frameworks, that is frameworks with...
We present an interdisciplinary approach to study systematic relations between logical form and atta...
We present a probabilistic interpretation of the plausibility of attacks in abstract argumentation f...
Evidence from studies, such as in science or medicine, often corresponds to conditional probability ...
AbstractArgumentation in the sense of a process of logical reasoning is a very intuitive and general...
Epistemic probabilities in argumentation frameworks are meant to represent subjective degrees of bel...
peer reviewedThere is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves (1) identifying ...
Faber W., Friedrich G., Gebser M., Morak M. (eds)A basic form of an instantiated argument is as a pa...
We explore systematic connections between weighted (semi-abstract) argumentation frames and t-norm-b...
International audienceThe paper presents a parallel between two important theories for the treatment...
Gradual semantics are methods that evaluate overall strengths of individual arguments in graphs. In ...
The epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation as- signs belief to arguments. This is valuabl...
According to the Bayesian paradigm in the psychology of reasoning, the norms by which everyday human...
In this paper we analyze probabilistic argumentation frameworks (PAFs), defined as an extension of D...
We consider argumentation systems taking into account several attack relations of different strength...
We propose a logical encoding of extended abstract argumentation frameworks, that is frameworks with...