Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks

  title={Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks},
  author={Benjamin Irwin and Antonio Rago and Francesca Toni},
We introduce Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks (FAFs), a novel argumentation-based methodology for forecasting informed by recent judgmental forecasting research. FAFs comprise update frameworks which empower (human or artificial) agents to argue over time about the probability of outcomes, e.g. the winner of an election or a fluctuation in inflation rates, whilst flagging perceived irrationality in the agents' behaviour with a view to improving their forecasting accuracy. FAFs include five… 

Figures and Tables from this paper



Quantitative Argumentation Debates with Votes for Opinion Polling

A method integrating argumentation within opinion polling to empower voters to add new statements that render their opinions in the polls individually rational while at the same time justifying them is given.

Discontinuity-Free Decision Support with Quantitative Argumentation Debates

A novel, discontinuity-free algorithm for computing the strength of decision options in QuAD frameworks is proposed and it is proved that this algorithm features several desirable properties and is compared to the two aggregation methods, showing that both may be appropriate in the context of different application scenarios.

Towards (Probabilistic) Argumentation for Jury-based Dispute Resolution

An argumentation framework for modelling jury-based dispute resolution where the dispute parties present their arguments before a judge and a jury and the jurors as triers of facts determine their probable weights is proposed.

Towards Artificial Argumentation

Recent developments in the field of computational models of argument are leading to technology for artificial argumentation, in the legal, medical, and e-government domains, and interesting tools for argument mining, for debating technologies, and for argumentation solvers are emerging.

Introduction to structured argumentation

Structured argumentation is the topic of this special issue of Argument and Computation, which assumes a formal language for representing knowledge, and specifying how arguments and counterarguments can be constructed from that knowledge.

A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments

  • A. Hunter
  • Philosophy, Mathematics
    Int. J. Approx. Reason.
  • 2013

Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks

This paper extends Dung's seminal argument framework to form a probabilistic argument framework by associating probabilities with arguments and defeats, and describes an approximate approach to computing these likelihoods based on Monte-Carlo simulation.

Argumentative XAI: A Survey

This survey overviews the literature focusing on different types of explanation, different models with which argumentation-based explanations are deployed, different forms of delivery, and different argumentation frameworks they use, and lays out a roadmap for future work.

A Probabilistic Semantics for abstract Argumentation

  • M. Thimm
  • Philosophy, Computer Science
  • 2012
A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation that assigns probabilities or degrees of belief to individual arguments is proposed that allows for a more fine-grained differentiation between those two extreme views on reasoning.