Empirical evaluation of abstract argumentation: Supporting the need for bipolar and probabilistic approaches
Empirical evaluation of abstract argumentation: Supporting the need for bipolar and probabilistic approaches
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ijar.2017.11.009
复制
发表时间：
2018-02-01
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Hunter, Anthony
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Polberg, Sylwia;Hunter, Anthony
在对话讨论中，通常假设参与各方总是正确地识别对方提出的意向陈述并认识到所有的关联关系，遵循三种可接受状态(接受、拒绝、未决定)，当新的和正确的信息进入时调整他们的观点，并且只处理攻击关系的框架足以代表他们的观点。虽然把这些假设作为进一步研究的起点是很自然的，但放弃其中的一些假设已经变得相当有挑战性。概率论证是可以用来进行更准确的用户建模的方法之一。认识论方法允许我们表示一个给定的论点在多大程度上被给定的人相信或不相信，这为我们提供了表达不止三个协议状态的可能性。它配备了广泛的假设，包括那些对如何看待最初的论点没有任何限制的假设。因此，这种方法可能更适合于处理那些没有完全公开他们对标准Dung的语义的看法或反驳的人的信念。星座方法可以用来代表不同人对我们正在处理的框架结构的看法，包括并非所有关系都得到承认的情况，或者当它们被视为与预期不同的情况。最后，两极论证框架可以用来表达论点之间的积极和消极关系。在本文中，我们将描述一个实验的结果，在这个实验中，参与者被要求从协议和结构两个方面来判断对话。我们将把我们的发现与上述假设以及概率论证和两极论证的星座和认知方法进行比较。(C)2017 Elsevier Inc.保留所有权利。
In dialogical argumentation, it is often assumed that the involved parties will always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other and realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views whenever new and correct information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is sufficient to represent their opinions. Although it is natural to make these assumptions as a starting point for further research, dropping some of them has become quite challenging.Probabilistic argumentation is one of the approaches that can be harnessed for more accurate user modelling. The epistemic approach allows us to represent how much a given argument is believed or disbelieved by a given person, offering us the possibility to express more than just three agreement states. It comes equipped with a wide range of postulates, including those that do not make any restrictions concerning how initial arguments should be viewed. Thus, this approach is potentially more suitable for handling beliefs of the people that have not fully disclosed their opinions or counterarguments with respect to standard Dung's semantics. The constellation approach can be used to represent the views of different people concerning the structure of the framework we are dealing with, including situations in which not all relations are acknowledged or when they are seen differently than intended. Finally, bipolar argumentation frameworks can be used to express both positive and negative relations between arguments.In this paper we will describe the results of an experiment in which participants were asked to judge dialogues in terms of agreement and structure. We will compare our findings with the aforementioned assumptions as well as with the constellation and epistemic approaches to probabilistic argumentation and bipolar argumentation. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.