Empirical evaluation of abstract argumentation: supporting the need for bipolar and probabilistic approaches
- Submitting institution
-
Cardiff University / Prifysgol Caerdydd
- Unit of assessment
- 11 - Computer Science and Informatics
- Output identifier
- 97031685
- Type
- D - Journal article
- DOI
-
10.1016/j.ijar.2017.11.009
- Title of journal
- International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
- Article number
- -
- First page
- 487
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- -
- ISSN
- 0888-613X
- Open access status
- Technical exception
- Month of publication
- December
- Year of publication
- 2017
- URL
-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2017.11.009
- Supplementary information
-
-
- Request cross-referral to
- -
- Output has been delayed by COVID-19
- No
- COVID-19 affected output statement
- -
- Forensic science
- No
- Criminology
- No
- Interdisciplinary
- No
- Number of additional authors
-
1
- Research group(s)
-
A - Artificial intelligence and data analytics
- Citation count
- 11
- Proposed double-weighted
- No
- Reserve for an output with double weighting
- No
- Additional information
- Despite numerous proposals for formal argumentation models, few empirical studies have investigated whether they adequately reflect human reasoning. This paper addresses this gap through a participatory study that evaluates argumentation approaches in a practical, dynamic setting of healthcare dialogues. The results highlight a necessary set of requirements that formalisms need to satisfy and shows that previous theoretical approaches fail to meet them. The insight gained from this participatory study led to the development of a new formal argumentation model, called epistemic graphs (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2020.103236), ongoing research and international collaborations.
- Author contribution statement
- -
- Non-English
- No
- English abstract
- -