Abstract
It is common for people to remark that a particular argument is a strong (or weak) argument. Having a handle on the relative strengths of arguments can help in deciding on which arguments to consider, and on which to present to others in a discussion. In computational models of argument, there is a need for a deeper understanding of argument strength. Our approach in this paper is to draw on confirmation theory for quantifying argument strength, and harness this in a framework based on probabilistic argumentation. We show how we can calculate strength based on the structure of the argument involving defeasible rules. The insights appear transferable to a variety of other structured argumentation systems.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
