Enumerating preferred extensions : a case study of human reasoning
MetadataShow full item record
This paper seeks to better understand the links between human reasoning and preferred extensions as found within formal argumentation, especially in the context of uncertainty. The degree of believability of a conclusion may be associated with the number of preferred extensions in which the conclusion is credulously accepted. We are interested in whether people agree with this evaluation. A set of experiments with human participants is presented to investigate the validity of such an association. Our results show that people tend to agree with the outcome of a version of Thimm’s probabilistic semantics in purely qualitative domains as well as in domains in which conclusions express event likelihood. Furthermore, we are able to characterise this behaviour: the heuristics employed by people in understanding preferred extensions are similar to those employed in understanding probabilities.
Toniolo , A , Norman , T J & Oren , N 2018 , Enumerating preferred extensions : a case study of human reasoning . in E Black , S Modgil & N Oren (eds) , Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation : 4th International Workshop, TAFA 2017, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, August 19-20, 2017, Revised Selected Papers . Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) , vol. 10757 LNAI , Springer , Cham , pp. 192-210 , 4th International Workshop on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation, TAFA 2017 , Melbourne , Australia , 19/08/17 . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75553-3_14workshop
Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018. This work has been made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. This is the author created accepted version manuscript following peer review and as such may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75553-3_14
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.