Abstract
Bayesian networks (BNs) are powerful tools that are well-suited for reasoning about the uncertain consequences that can be inferred from evidence. Domain experts, however, typically do not have the expertise to construct BNs and instead resort to using other tools such as argument diagrams and mind maps. Recently, we proposed a structured approach to construct a BN graph from arguments annotated with causality information. As argumentative inferences may not be causal, we generalize this approach to include other types of inferences in this paper. Moreover, we prove a number of formal properties of the generalized approach and identify assumptions under which the construction of an initial BN graph can be fully automated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bex, F.: An integrated theory of causal stories and evidential arguments. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 13–22. ACM Press, New York (2015)
Bex, F., Modgil, S., Prakken, H., Reed, C.A.: On logical specifications of the argument interchange format. J. Logic Comput. 23(5), 951–989 (2013)
Bex, F., Renooij, S.: From arguments to constraints on a Bayesian network. In: Baroni, P., Gordon, T.F., Scheffler, T., Stede, M. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2016, vol. 287, pp. 95–106. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2016)
Buckingham Shum, S.J.: The roots of computer supported argument visualization. In: Kirschner, P.A., Buckingham Shum, S.J., Carr, C.S. (eds.) Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making, pp. 3–24. Springer, London (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9_1
Console, L., Dupré, D.T.: Abductive reasoning with abstraction axioms. In: Lakemeyer, G., Nebel, B. (eds.) Foundations of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 810, pp. 98–112. Springer, Heidelberg (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58107-3_6
Fenton, N., Neil, M.: Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Networks. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2012)
van der Gaag, L.C., Helsper, E.M.: Experiences with modelling issues in building probabilistic networks. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 21–26. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45810-7_4
Helsper, E.M., van der Gaag, L.C.: Building Bayesian networks through ontologies. In: van Harmelen, F. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fifteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 77, pp. 680–684. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)
Hunter, A.: A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 54(1), 47–81 (2013)
Hunter, A., Thimm, M.: On partial information and contradictions in probabilistic abstract argumentation. In: Baral, C., Delgrande, J., Wolter, F. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference (KR-2016), pp. 53–62. AAAI Press, Palo Alto (2016)
Jensen, F.V., Nielsen, T.D.: Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68282-2
Keppens, J.: Argument diagram extraction from evidential Bayesian networks. Artif. Intell. Law 20(2), 109–143 (2012)
Keppens, J.: On modelling non-probabilistic uncertainty in the likelihood ratio approach to evidential reasoning. Artif. Intell. Law 22(3), 239–290 (2014)
Pearl, J.: Embracing causality in default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 35(2), 259–271 (1988)
Prakken, H.: Probabilistic strength of arguments with structure. In: Thielscher, M., Toni, F., Wolter, F. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference (KR-2018), pp. 158–167. AAAI Press, Palo Alto (2018)
Rienstra, T.: Towards a probabilistic Dung-style argumentation system. In: Ossowski, S., Toni, F., Vouros, G.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Agreement Technologies, pp. 138–152. CEUR, Aachen (2012)
Timmer, S.T., Meyer, J.-J.C., Prakken, H., Renooij, S., Verheij, B.: Explaining Bayesian networks using argumentation. In: Destercke, S., Denoeux, T. (eds.) ECSQARU 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9161, pp. 83–92. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20807-7_8
Wieten, R., Bex, F., Prakken, H., Renooij, S.: Exploiting causality in constructing Bayesian networks from legal arguments. In: Palmirani, M. (ed.) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2018: The Thirty-First Annual Conference, vol. 313, pp. 151–160. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2018)
Wieten, R., Bex, F., Prakken, H., Renooij, S.: Supporting discussions about forensic Bayesian networks using argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 143–152. ACM Press, New York (2019)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wieten, R., Bex, F., Prakken, H., Renooij, S. (2019). Constructing Bayesian Network Graphs from Labeled Arguments. In: Kern-Isberner, G., Ognjanović, Z. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11726. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29765-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29765-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29764-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29765-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)