Resolving Conflicting Arguments under Uncertainties

TL;DR

This paper introduces an integrated framework extending argumentation theory to handle conflicts and uncertainties in distributed knowledge applications, enabling context-dependent conclusions.

Contribution

It proposes a novel framework that models uncertainty within argumentation theory, supporting multiple views for conflict resolution in uncertain knowledge.

Findings

Framework effectively models uncertainty and conflicts.

Supports multiple perspectives for decision-making.

Demonstrated practical usefulness through a strategic decision support example.

Abstract

Distributed knowledge based applications in open domain rely on common sense information which is bound to be uncertain and incomplete. To draw the useful conclusions from ambiguous data, one must address uncertainties and conflicts incurred in a holistic view. No integrated frameworks are viable without an in-depth analysis of conflicts incurred by uncertainties. In this paper, we give such an analysis and based on the result, propose an integrated framework. Our framework extends definite argumentation theory to model uncertainty. It supports three views over conflicting and uncertain knowledge. Thus, knowledge engineers can draw different conclusions depending on the application context (i.e. view). We also give an illustrative example on strategical decision support to show the practical usefulness of our framework.