Abstract
In this paper, we extend Dung’s seminal argument framework to form a probabilistic argument framework by associating probabilities with arguments and defeats. We then compute the likelihood of some set of arguments appearing within an arbitrary argument framework induced from this probabilistic framework. We show that the complexity of computing this likelihood precisely is exponential in the number of arguments and defeats, and thus describe an approximate approach to computing these likelihoods based on Monte-Carlo simulation. Evaluating the latter approach against the exact approach shows significant computational savings. Our probabilistic argument framework is applicable to a number of real world problems; we show its utility by applying it to the problem of coalition formation.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Agresti, A., Coull, B.A.: Approximate is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. The American Statistician 52(2), 119–126 (1998)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Automated Reasoning 29, 125–169 (2002)
Baroni, P., Dunne, P.E., Giacomin, M.: On extension counting problems in argumentation frameworks. In: Proceeding of the 2010 Conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp. 63–74. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Semantics of abstract argument systems. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 25–44. Springer, US (2009)
Bench-Capon, T.: Value based argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Toulouse, France, pp. 444–453 (2002)
Burnett, C., Norman, T.J., Sycara, K.: Stereotypical trust and bias in dynamic multi-agent systems. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (in press)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Bipolar Abstract Argumentation Systems. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, ch. 4, pp. 65–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2009), http://www.springerlink.com
Coulom, R.: Efficient Selectivity and Backup Operators in Monte-Carlo Tree Search. In: van den Herik, H.J., Ciancarini, P., Donkers, H.H.L.M(J.) (eds.) CG 2006. LNCS, vol. 4630, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)
Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artificial Intelligence 175(2), 457–486 (2011)
Dunne, P.E., Wooldridge, M.: Complexity of abstract argumentation. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 85–104. Springer, US (2009)
Emele, C.D., Norman, T.J., Parsons, S.: Argumentation strategies for plan resourcing. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2011)
Erriquez, E., van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: An abstract framework for reasoning about trust. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2011 (to appear, 2011)
Gómez Lucero, M.J., Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R.: Modelling Argument Accrual in Possibilistic Defeasible Logic Programming. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU 2009. LNCS, vol. 5590, pp. 131–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Janssen, J., Cock, M.D., Vermeir, D.: Fuzzy argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of IMPU 2008 (12th International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems), pp. 513–520 (2008)
Kohlas, J., Haenni, R.: Assumption-based reasoning and probabilistic argumentation systems. Tech. Rep. 96–07, Institute of Informatics, University of Fribourg, Switzerland (1996)
Krause, P., Ambler, S., Elvang-Goransson, M., Fox, J.: A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence 11(1), 113–131 (1995)
Lewicki, P., Hill, T.: Statistics: Methods and Applications. StatSoft Inc. (2005)
Mitchell, T.M.: Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill Higher Education (1997)
Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In: Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, Toulouse, France, May 28-30, pp. 276–284 (2008)
Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Arguing Using Opponent Models. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6057, pp. 160–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Oren, N., Norman, T.J., Preece, A.: Arguing with confidential information. In: Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Riva del Garda, Italy, pp. 280–284 (August 2006)
Parsons, S.: Normative Argumentation and Qualitative Probability. In: Gabbay, D.M., Kruse, R., Nonnengart, A., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds.) FAPR 1997 and ECSQARU 1997. LNCS, vol. 1244, pp. 466–480. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Patel, J., Teacy, W.T.L., Jennings, N.R., Luck, M., Chalmers, S., Oren, N., Norman, T.J., Preece, A., Gray, P.M.D., Shercliff, G., Stockreisser, P.J., Shao, J., Gray, W.A., Fiddian, N.J., Thompson, S.: Agent-based virtual organisations for the grid. Multiagent and Grid Systems 1(4), 237–249 (2006)
Pearl, J.: Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1988)
Pechoucek, M., Marík, V., Bárta, J.: A knowledge-based approach to coalition formation. IEEE Intelligent Systems 17, 17–25 (2002)
Pollock, J.L.: Cognitive Carpentry. Bradford/MIT Press (1995)
Rahwan, T.: Algorithms for Coalition Formation in Multi-Agent Systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton (2007)
Riveret, R., Prakken, H., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Heuristics in argumentation: A game theory investigation. In: Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, Toulouse, France, May 28-30, pp. 324–335 (2008)
Rotstein, N., Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Resource bounded argumentation frameworks. Tech. rep., University of Aberdeen (2011)
Sutton, R.S., Barto, A.G.: Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning). The MIT Press (March 1998)
Teacy, W.T.L., Patel, J., Jennings, N.R., Luck, M.: Travos: Trust and reputation in the context of inaccurate information sources. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 12(2), 183–198 (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Li, H., Oren, N., Norman, T.J. (2012). Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds) Theorie and Applications of Formal Argumentation. TAFA 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7132. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-29183-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-29184-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)