Resolving Conflicting Arguments under Uncertainties

by   Benson Hin Kwong Ng, et al.

Distributed knowledge based applications in open domain rely on common sense information which is bound to be uncertain and incomplete. To draw the useful conclusions from ambiguous data, one must address uncertainties and conflicts incurred in a holistic view. No integrated frameworks are viable without an in-depth analysis of conflicts incurred by uncertainties. In this paper, we give such an analysis and based on the result, propose an integrated framework. Our framework extends definite argumentation theory to model uncertainty. It supports three views over conflicting and uncertain knowledge. Thus, knowledge engineers can draw different conclusions depending on the application context (i.e. view). We also give an illustrative example on strategical decision support to show the practical usefulness of our framework.


A Note on Rich Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks

Recently, qualitative uncertainty in abstract argumentation has received...

On the Acceptability of Arguments in Preference-Based Argumentation

Argumentation is a promising model for reasoning with uncertain knowledg...

Formalizing Scenario Analysis

We propose a formal treatment of scenarios in the context of a dialectic...

Using arguments for making decisions: A possibilistic logic approach

Humans currently use arguments for explaining choices which are already ...

Co-Arg: Cogent Argumentation with Crowd Elicitation

This paper presents Co-Arg, a new type of cognitive assistant to an inte...

Modeling uncertain and vague knowledge in possibility and evidence theories

This paper advocates the usefulness of new theories of uncertainty for t...

The Singularity May Be Near

Toby Walsh in 'The Singularity May Never Be Near' gives six arguments to...