English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Probabilistic Argumentation naturally supports the integration of quantitative (probabilistic) reasoning and qualitative argumentation. Meanwhile, Jury-based Probabilistic Argumentation supports the combination of opinions by different reasoners. We show how Jury-based Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation (JPAA) and a form of Jury-based Probabilistic Assumption-based Argumentation (JPABA) can naturally support  forecasting , whereby subjective probability estimates are combined to make predictions about future events. The form of JPABA we consider is an instance of JPAA and results from integrating Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) and probability spaces expressed by Bayesian networks. We show how JPAA and (the considered form of) JPABA can support forecasting by allowing different forecasters to determine the probability of arguments (and, in JPABA, sentences) with respect to their own probability spaces, while sharing arguments (and, in JPABA, their components). We show in turn how this supports the aggregation of individual forecasts into group forecasts.

Forecasting with jury-based probabilistic argumentation