Empirical evaluation of abstract argumentation: Supporting the need for bipolar and probabilistic approaches
- Submitting institution
-
University College London
- Unit of assessment
- 11 - Computer Science and Informatics
- Output identifier
- 14352
- 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
- Compliant
- Month of publication
- December
- Year of publication
- 2017
- URL
-
-
- 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)
-
-
- Citation count
- 11
- Proposed double-weighted
- No
- Reserve for an output with double weighting
- No
- Additional information
- There are numerous proposals for formal modelling of argumentation, but few empirical studies to investigate whether they reflect human reasoning. This paper is the most extensive empirical study with participants in dialogues. The results highlight a set of requirements that formalisms need to satisfy if they are to model the uncertainty that arises in argumentation, and the paper shows that key theoretical approaches fail to meet them. This has led us to develop a novel formalism, called epistemic graphs, and the paper is regularly cited by others as evidence for justifying new theoretical developments in modelling argumentation.
- Author contribution statement
- -
- Non-English
- No
- English abstract
- -