Quantifying disagreement in argument-based reasoning (bibtex)
by R. Booth, M. Caminada, M. Podlaszewski, I. Rahwan
Abstract:
An argumentation framework can be seen as expressing, in an abstract way, the conflicting information of an underlying logical knowledge base. This conflicting information often allows for the presence of more than one possible reasonable position (extension/labelling) which one can take. A relevant question, therefore, is how much these positions differ from each other. In the current paper, we will examine the issue of how to define meaningful measures of distance between the (complete) labellings of a given argumentation framework. We provide concrete distance measures based on argument-wise label difference, as well as based on the notion of critical sets, and examine their properties.
Reference:
Quantifying disagreement in argument-based reasoning (R. Booth, M. Caminada, M. Podlaszewski, I. Rahwan), 2012.
Bibtex Entry:
@Other{10993/10329,
  Title                    = {Quantifying disagreement in argument-based reasoning},
  Abstract                 = {An argumentation framework can be seen as expressing, in an abstract way, the conflicting information of an underlying logical knowledge base. This conflicting information often allows for the presence of more than one possible reasonable position (extension/labelling) which one can take. A relevant question, therefore, is how much these positions differ from each other. In the current paper, we will examine the issue of how to define meaningful measures of distance between the (complete) labellings of a given argumentation framework. We provide concrete distance measures based on argument-wise label difference, as well as based on the notion of critical sets, and examine their properties.},
  Author                   = {Booth, R. and Caminada, M. and Podlaszewski, M. and Rahwan, I.},
  Timestamp                = {2015.01.26},
  Year                     = {2012}
}
Powered by bibtexbrowser