Advertisement

Normative argumentation and qualitative probability

  • Simon Parsons
Accepted Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1244)

Abstract

In recent years there has been a spate of papers describing systems for plausible reasoning which do not use numerical measures of uncertainty. Some of the most successful of these have been systems for argumentation, and there are advantages in considering the conditions under which such systems are normative. This paper discusses an extension to previous work on normative argumentation, exploring the properties of a particular normative approach to argumentation and suggesting some uses of it.

Keywords

Probabilistic Interpretation Atomic Proposition Proof Rule Default Reasoning Probabilistic Semantic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, and H. Prade. Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Darwiche. Argument calculus and networks. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Darwiche and M. Ginsberg. A symbolic generalisation of probability theory. In Proceedings of the 10th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Darwiche and M. Goldszmidt. On the relation between kappa calculus and probabilistic reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. J. Druzdzel. Probabilistic reasoning in Decision Support Systems: from computation to common sense. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Fox. A unified framework for hypothetical and practical reasoning (2): lessons from clinical medicine. In Proceedings of the Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Fox and S. Parsons. On using arguments for reasoning about actions and values. In Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Qualitative Preferences in Deliberation and Practical Reasoning, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Fox, S. Parsons, P. Krause, and M Elvang-Gørannson. A generic framework for uncertain reasoning. In Proceedings of the IMACS III International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning and Decision Technologies, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Goldszmidt and J. Pearl. Qualitative probabilities for default reasoning, belief revision and causal modelling. Artificial Intelligence, 84:57–112, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Krause, S. Ambler, M. Elvang-Gøransson, and J. Fox. A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence, 11:113–131, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Loui. Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence, 3:100–106, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. F. Michelena. Monotonic influence diagrams: application to optimal and robust design. PhD thesis, University of California at Berkeley, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Neufeld. A probabilistic commonsense reasoner. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 5:565–594, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Parsons. Refining reasoning in qualitative probabilistic networks. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Parsons. Comparing normative argumentation with other qualitative probabilistic systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Information Processing and the Management of Uncertainty, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Parsons. Defining normative systems for qualitative argumentation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Parsons. Normative argumentation and qualitative probability. Technical report, Department of Electronic Engineering, Queen Mary and Westfield College, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Parsons. Qualitative approaches to reasoning under uncertainty. MIT Press, (to appear), Cambridge, MA, 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Pearl. Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems; networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA., 1988.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. L. Pollock. Justification and defeat. Artificial Intelligence, 67:377–407, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. P. Wellman. Formulation of tradeoffs in planning under uncertainty. Pitman, London, 1990.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    N. Wilson. An order of magnitude calculus. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Parsons
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electronic EngineeringQueen Mary and Westfield CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations