Menu
Home
People
Places
Arts
History
Plants & Animals
Science
Life & Culture
Technology
Reference.org
Probabilistic argumentation
open-in-new
<h2 id="probabilistic-argumentation-labellings">Probabilistic argumentation labellings</h2> <p>The framework of "probabilistic labellings" refers to probability spaces where the sample space is a set of labellings of <a href="/facts/Argumentation_framework/IYodsTwr">argumentation graphs</a> (Riveret et al. 2018). A labelling of an argumentation graph associates any argument of the graph with a label to reflect the acceptability of the argument within the graph. For example, an argument can be associated with a label "in" (the argument is accepted), "out" (the argument is rejected), or "und" (the status of the argument is undecided — neither accepted nor rejected). Consequently, the approach of probabilistic labellings associates any argument with the probability of a label to reflect the probability of the argument to be labelled as such. </p> <h2 id="probabilistic-argumentation-systems">Probabilistic argumentation systems</h2> <p>The name "probabilistic argumentation" has been used to refer to a particular theory of reasoning that encompasses uncertainty and ignorance, combining <a href="/facts/Probability_theory/mFBn51rE">probability theory</a> and <a href="/facts/Deductive_logic/HadA1zWS">deductive logic</a> (Haenni, Kohlas & Lehmann 2000). <a href="http://openpas.steweche.co.uk">OpenPAS</a> is an open-source implementation of such a probabilistic argumentation system. </p><p>Probabilistic argumentation systems encounter a problem when used to determine the occurrence of <a href="/facts/Black_Swan_Theory/jcmfwymP">Black Swan</a> events since, by definition, those events are so improbable as to seem impossible. As such, probabilistic arguments should be considered fallacious arguments known as <a href="/facts/Appeal_to_probability/U97rrS35">appeals to probability</a>. </p> <ul><li>Riveret, R.; Baroni, P.; Gao, Y.; Governatori, G.; Rotolo, A.; Sartor, G. (2018), "A Labelling Framework for Probabilistic Argumentation", <i>Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence</i>, 83: 221–287, <a href="/facts/ArXiv_(identifier)/H6EtgnBe">arXiv</a>:<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00109">1708.00109</a>, <a href="/facts/Doi_(identifier)/muM9Etpq">doi</a>:<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10472-018-9574-1">10.1007/s10472-018-9574-1</a></li></ul> <ul><li>Haenni, R.; Kohlas, J.; Lehmann, N. (2000), <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20050125040324/http://diuf.unifr.ch/tcs/publications/ps/hkl2000.pdf">"Probabilistic argumentation systems"</a> (PDF), in J. Kohlas and S. Moral (ed.), <i>Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems</i>, Dordrecht: Volume 5: Algorithms for Uncertainty and Defeasible Reasoning, Kluwer, pp. 221–287, archived from <a href="http://diuf.unifr.ch/tcs/publications/ps/hkl2000.pdf">the original</a> (PDF) on 2005-01-25</li></ul> <ul><li>D.M. Gabbay and O.Rodrigues, "Probabilistic Argumentation: An Equational Approach", <i><a href="/facts/Logica_Universalis/N6xglbGD">Logica Universalis</a></i>, 2015. <a href="/facts/Doi_(identifier)/muM9Etpq">doi</a>:<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11787-015-0120-1">10.1007/s11787-015-0120-1</a></li></ul>