Eliciting Rational Initial Weights in Gradual Argumentation
Many semantics for weighted argumentation frameworks assume that each argument is associated with an initial weight. However, eliciting these initial weights poses challenges: (1) accurately providing a specific numerical value is often difficult, and (2) individuals frequently confuse initial weights with acceptability degrees in the presence of other arguments. To address these issues, we propose an elicitation pipeline that allows one to specify acceptability degree intervals for each argument. By employing gradual semantics, we can refine these intervals when they are rational, restore rationality when they are not, and ultimately identify possible initial weights for each argument.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
The Inverse Problem for Argumentation Gradual Semantics
Gradual semantics with abstract argumentation provide each argument with a score reflecting its acceptability, i.e. how "much" it is attacked by other arguments. Many different gradual semantics have been proposed in the…
Abstract ArgumentationAnalytical Solutions for the Inverse Problem within Gradual Semantics
Gradual semantics within abstract argumentation associate a numeric score with every argument in a system, which represents the level of acceptability of this argument, and from which a preference ordering over arguments…
Abstract ArgumentationInferring Attack Relations for Gradual Semantics
A gradual semantics takes a weighted argumentation framework as input and outputs a final acceptability degree for each argument, with different semantics performing the computation in different manners. In this work, we…
Double Rectified Linear Unit-based Modular Semantics for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework
Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs) provide an alternative approach to computing argument acceptability in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAFs). Each argument is assigned an initial strength, which i…
Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks
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 o…