Lower Bounds on Argument Verification in Computational Dialectic

Authors:
Gerard Vreeswijk
Affiliations:
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Venue:
Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010
Year:
2010

Citing 10
Cited 0

Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference

Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference
On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games

Artificial Intelligence
Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification

Artificial Intelligence
Introduction to Bayesian Networks

Introduction to Bayesian Networks
Elements of Argumentation

Elements of Argumentation
A Game-Theoretic Measure of Argument Strength for Abstract Argumentation

JELIA '08 Proceedings of the 11th European conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence
Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems

Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2
Success chances in argument games: a probabilistic approach to legal disputes

Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference
Why lawyers are nice (or nasty): a game-theoretical argumentation exercise

Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Graduality in argumentation

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

An argument may be considered sound (“admissible” or “RSA-compliable” in informal logic) if it is well-formed and fulfills a number of reasonable semantic criteria. When agents exchange arguments, not all incoming arguments are sound. This paper formulates two results. First, it gives lower bounds for the verification rate of incoming arguments, given an estimate of the percentage of incoming sound arguments and a predefined tolerance of error. Second, it prescribes what percentage of incoming arguments must be verified if there is no prescribed error tolerance, but there is a tradeoff between cost of verification and cost of error.