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 or artificial) agents to argue over time about the probability of outcomes, e.g. the winner of a political 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 argument types, amounting to standard pro/con arguments, as in bipolar argumentation, as well as novel proposal arguments and increase/decrease amendment arguments. We adapt an existing gradual semantics for bipolar argumentation to determine the aggregated dialectical strength of proposal arguments and define irrational behaviour. We then give a simple aggregation function which produces a final group forecast from rational agents' individual forecasts. We identify and study properties of FAFs and conduct an empirical evaluation which signals FAFs' potential to increase the forecasting accuracy of participants.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Splitting Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks and Supports
This work proposes novel splitting techniques for argumentation formalisms that incorporate supports between defeasible elements. We base our studies on bipolar set-based argumentation frameworks (BSAFs) which generalize…
On the preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: bijections with naive sets
This paper deals with the problem of finding the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework by means of a bijection with the naive sets of another framework. First, we consider the case where an argumentation fra…
A Methodology for Incompleteness-Tolerant and Modular Gradual Semantics for Argumentative Statement Graphs
Gradual semantics (GS) have demonstrated great potential in argumentation, in particular for deploying quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks (QBAFs) in a number of real-world settings, from judgmental forecasting…
Technical report of "Empirical Study on Human Evaluation of Complex Argumentation Frameworks"
In abstract argumentation, multiple argumentation semantics have been proposed that allow to select sets of jointly acceptable arguments from a given argumentation framework, i.e. based only on the attack relation betwee…
Abstract ArgumentationRelationRetrieval- and Argumentation-Enhanced Multi-Agent LLMs for Judgmental Forecasting (Extended Version with Supplementary Material)
Judgmental forecasting is the task of making predictions about future events based on human judgment. This task can be seen as a form of claim verification, where the claim corresponds to a future event and the task is t…
Argument Mining