Results 1  10
of
433
The Transferable Belief Model
 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
, 1994
"... We describe the transferable belief model, a model for representing quantified beliefs based on belief functions. Beliefs can be held at two levels: (1) a credal level where beliefs are entertained and quantified by belief functions, (2) a pignistic level where beliefs can be used to make decisions ..."
Abstract

Cited by 486 (15 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We describe the transferable belief model, a model for representing quantified beliefs based on belief functions. Beliefs can be held at two levels: (1) a credal level where beliefs are entertained and quantified by belief functions, (2) a pignistic level where beliefs can be used to make decisions and are quantified by probability functions. The relation between the belief function and the probability function when decisions must be made is derived and justified. Four paradigms are analyzed in order to compare Bayesian, upper and lower probability, and the transferable belief approaches.
A Logic of Argumentation for Reasoning under Uncertainty.
 Computational Intelligence
, 1995
"... We present the syntax and proof theory of a logic of argumentation, LA. We also outline the development of a category theoretic semantics for LA. LA is the core of a proof theoretic model for reasoning under uncertainty. In this logic, propositions are labelled with a representation of the arguments ..."
Abstract

Cited by 145 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present the syntax and proof theory of a logic of argumentation, LA. We also outline the development of a category theoretic semantics for LA. LA is the core of a proof theoretic model for reasoning under uncertainty. In this logic, propositions are labelled with a representation of the arguments which support their validity. Arguments may then be aggregated to collect more information about the potential validity of the propositions of interest. We make the notion of aggregation primitive to the logic, and then define strength mappings from sets of arguments to one of a number of possible dictionaries. This provides a uniform framework which incorporates a number of numerical and symbolic techniques for assigning subjective confidences to propositions on the basis of their supporting arguments. These aggregation techniques are also described, with examples. Key words: Uncertain reasoning, epistemic probability, argumentation, nonclassical logics, nonmonotonic reasoning 1. Introd...
A LogicBased Theory of Deductive Arguments
, 2001
"... We explore a framework for argumentation (based on classical logic) in which an argument is a pair where the first item in the pair is a minimal consistent set of formulae that proves the second item (which is a formula). We provide some basic definitions for arguments, and various kinds of counter ..."
Abstract

Cited by 134 (22 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We explore a framework for argumentation (based on classical logic) in which an argument is a pair where the first item in the pair is a minimal consistent set of formulae that proves the second item (which is a formula). We provide some basic definitions for arguments, and various kinds of counterarguments (defeaters). This leads us to the definition of canonical undercuts which we argue are the only defeaters that we need to take into account. We then motivate and formalise the notion of argument trees and argument structures which provide a way of exhaustively collating arguments and counterarguments. We use argument structures as the basis of our general proposal for argument aggregation.
Checking the Acceptability of a Set of Arguments
, 2004
"... Considering Dung's argumentation framework and semantics, we are interested in the problem which consists in deciding whether a set of arguments is acceptable under a given semantics. We look at three approaches. The first one consists in testing whether the set satisfies an equation; In pa ..."
Abstract

Cited by 28 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
; In particular, we look at the equations presented in (Dung 1995; Besnard & Doutre 2004). The second approach consists in testing whether the set is a model of a propositional formula and the third one consists in testing the satisfiability of a propositional formula.
Towards Higher Impact Argumentation
, 2004
"... There are a number of frameworks for modelling argumentation in logic. They incorporate a formal representation of individual arguments and techniques for comparing conflicting arguments. An example is the framework by Besnard and Hunter that is based on classical logic and in which an argument ..."
Abstract

Cited by 22 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
There are a number of frameworks for modelling argumentation in logic. They incorporate a formal representation of individual arguments and techniques for comparing conflicting arguments. An example is the framework by Besnard and Hunter that is based on classical logic and in which an argument
Analyzing the Combination of Conflicting Belief Functions
 Information Fusion
, 2007
"... We consider uncertain data which uncertainty is represented by belief functions and that must be combined. The result of the combination of the belief functions can be partially conflictual. Initially Shafer proposed Dempster’s rule of combination where the conflict is reallocated proportionally amo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 55 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We consider uncertain data which uncertainty is represented by belief functions and that must be combined. The result of the combination of the belief functions can be partially conflictual. Initially Shafer proposed Dempster’s rule of combination where the conflict is reallocated proportionally among the other masses. Then Zadeh presented an example where Dempster’s rule of combination produces unsatisfactory results. Several solutions were proposed: the TBM solution where masses are not renormalized and conflict is stored in the mass given to the empty set, Yager’s solution where the conflict is transferred to the universe and Dubois and Prade’s solution where the masses resulting from pairs of conflictual focal elements are transferred to the union of these subsets. Many other suggestions have then been made, creating a ‘jungle’ of combination rules. We discuss the nature of the combinations (conjunctive versus disjunctive, revision versus updating, static versus dynamic data fusion), argue about the need for a normalization, examine the possible origins of the conflicts, determine if a combination is justified and analyze many of the proposed solutions.
Degradation and mRNA Expression During Follicular Development
"... ovarian follicles are characterized by a high proteolytic activity degrading IGF binding protein4 (IGFBP4). More precisely, Besnard et al. (1, 2) have shown that follicular growth and atresia are characterized by an increase and decrease, respectively, in intrafollicular proteolytic activity degra ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
ovarian follicles are characterized by a high proteolytic activity degrading IGF binding protein4 (IGFBP4). More precisely, Besnard et al. (1, 2) have shown that follicular growth and atresia are characterized by an increase and decrease, respectively, in intrafollicular proteolytic activity
Quasiclassical Logic: Nontrivializable classical reasoning from inconsistent information
, 1995
"... . Here we present a new paraconsistent logic, called quasiclassical logic (or QC logic) that allows the derivation of nontrivializable classical inferences. For this it is necessary that queries are in conjunctive normal form and the reasoning process is essentially that of clause finding. We prese ..."
Abstract

Cited by 42 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. Here we present a new paraconsistent logic, called quasiclassical logic (or QC logic) that allows the derivation of nontrivializable classical inferences. For this it is necessary that queries are in conjunctive normal form and the reasoning process is essentially that of clause finding. We present a prooftheoretic definition, and semantics, and show that the consequence relation observes reflexivity, monotonicity and transitivity, but fails cut and supraclassicality. Finally we discuss some of the advantages of this logic, over other paraconsistent logics, for applications in information systems. 1 Introduction In practical reasoning, it is common to have `too much' information about some situation. In other words, it is common to have to reason with classically inconsistent information. The diversity of logics proposed for aspects of practical reasoning indicates the complexity of this form of reasoning. However, central to practical reasoning seems to be the need to reason with...
unknown title
"... There are a number of frameworks for modelling argumentation in logic. They incorporate a formal representation of individual arguments and techniques for comparing conflicting arguments. An example is the framework by Besnard and Hunter that is based on classical logic and in which an argument (obt ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
There are a number of frameworks for modelling argumentation in logic. They incorporate a formal representation of individual arguments and techniques for comparing conflicting arguments. An example is the framework by Besnard and Hunter that is based on classical logic and in which an argument
Results 1  10
of
433