TY - JOUR
T1 - A probabilistic deontic argumentation framework
AU - Riveret, Régis
AU - Oren, Nir
AU - Sartor, Giovanni
N1 - Régis Riveret: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Nir Oren: Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Giovanni Sartor: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
PY - 2020/11
Y1 - 2020/11
N2 - What does it mean that something is probably obligatory? And how does it relate to the probability that it is permitted or prohibited? In this paper, we provide a possible answer by merging deontic argumentation and probabilistic argumentation into a probabilistic deontic argumentation framework. This framework allows us to specify a semantics for the probability of deontic statuses. The deontic argumentation part builds on standard concepts from the study of computational models of argument: rule-based arguments, argumentation graphs, argument labelling semantics and statement labelling semantics. We then encapsulate this deontic composition with the approach of probabilistic labellings to probabilistic argumentation, in order to associate deontic statements with probability values. The framework is illustratedwith a scenario featuring a violation and a contrary-to-duty obligation
AB - What does it mean that something is probably obligatory? And how does it relate to the probability that it is permitted or prohibited? In this paper, we provide a possible answer by merging deontic argumentation and probabilistic argumentation into a probabilistic deontic argumentation framework. This framework allows us to specify a semantics for the probability of deontic statuses. The deontic argumentation part builds on standard concepts from the study of computational models of argument: rule-based arguments, argumentation graphs, argument labelling semantics and statement labelling semantics. We then encapsulate this deontic composition with the approach of probabilistic labellings to probabilistic argumentation, in order to associate deontic statements with probability values. The framework is illustratedwith a scenario featuring a violation and a contrary-to-duty obligation
KW - Probabilistic argumentation
KW - deontic argumentation
KW - Deontic argumentation
KW - SUPPORT
KW - LAW
KW - ABSTRACT ARGUMENTATION
KW - STRUCTURED ARGUMENTATION
KW - POSITIVISM
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090206646&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijar.2020.08.012
DO - 10.1016/j.ijar.2020.08.012
M3 - Article
VL - 126
SP - 249
EP - 271
JO - International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
JF - International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
SN - 0888-613X
ER -