Advanced

Polarization and bipolar probabilistic argumentation frameworks

Proietti, Carlo LU (2017) In CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2012. p.22-27
Abstract

Discussion among individuals about a given issue often induces polarization and bipolarization effects, i.e. individuals radicalize their initial opinion towards either the same or opposite directions. Experimental psychologists have put forward Persuasive Arguments Theory (PAT) as a clue for explaining polarization. PAT claims that adding novel and persuasive arguments pro or contra the debated issue is the major cause for polarization. Recent developments in abstract argumentation provide the tools for capturing these intuitions on a formal basis. Here Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAF) are employed as a tool for encoding the information of agents in a debate relative to a given issue a. A probabilistic extension of BAF allows to... (More)

Discussion among individuals about a given issue often induces polarization and bipolarization effects, i.e. individuals radicalize their initial opinion towards either the same or opposite directions. Experimental psychologists have put forward Persuasive Arguments Theory (PAT) as a clue for explaining polarization. PAT claims that adding novel and persuasive arguments pro or contra the debated issue is the major cause for polarization. Recent developments in abstract argumentation provide the tools for capturing these intuitions on a formal basis. Here Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAF) are employed as a tool for encoding the information of agents in a debate relative to a given issue a. A probabilistic extension of BAF allows to encode the likelihood of the opinions pro or contra a before and after information exchange. It is shown, by a straightforward example, how these measures provide the basis to capture the intuitions of PAT.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
CEUR Workshop Proceedings
volume
2012
pages
6 pages
external identifiers
  • scopus:85039077760
ISSN
1613-0073
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
40b453a9-97df-433f-b2c7-e2a279e95e67
alternative location
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2012/AI3-2017_paper_3.pdf
date added to LUP
2018-01-08 13:18:53
date last changed
2018-01-08 13:18:53
@article{40b453a9-97df-433f-b2c7-e2a279e95e67,
  abstract     = {<p>Discussion among individuals about a given issue often induces polarization and bipolarization effects, i.e. individuals radicalize their initial opinion towards either the same or opposite directions. Experimental psychologists have put forward Persuasive Arguments Theory (PAT) as a clue for explaining polarization. PAT claims that adding novel and persuasive arguments pro or contra the debated issue is the major cause for polarization. Recent developments in abstract argumentation provide the tools for capturing these intuitions on a formal basis. Here Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAF) are employed as a tool for encoding the information of agents in a debate relative to a given issue a. A probabilistic extension of BAF allows to encode the likelihood of the opinions pro or contra a before and after information exchange. It is shown, by a straightforward example, how these measures provide the basis to capture the intuitions of PAT.</p>},
  author       = {Proietti, Carlo},
  issn         = {1613-0073},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {22--27},
  series       = {CEUR Workshop Proceedings},
  title        = {Polarization and bipolar probabilistic argumentation frameworks},
  volume       = {2012},
  year         = {2017},
}