# Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11590 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11590/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 3 of its 62 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 May 2022.

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Explainable Automated Fact-Checking for Public Health Claims](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.09926/) (2020)
- [Argumentative XAI: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.11266/) (2021)
- [Epistemic Graphs for Representing and Reasoning with Positive and Negative Influences of Arguments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.07489/) (2018)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Recourse under Model Multiplicity via Argumentative Ensembling (Technical Report)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.15097/) (2023)
- [A Methodology for Incompleteness-Tolerant and Modular Gradual Semantics for Argumentative Statement Graphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.22209/) (2024)
- [Argumentatively Coherent Judgmental Forecasting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.23163/) (2025)
- [Current and Future Challenges in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.04161/) (2023)
- [Argumentative Ensembling for Robust Recourse under Model Multiplicity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.20260/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We introduce Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks (FAFs), a novel argumentation-based methodology for forecasting informed by recent judgmental forecasting research. FAFs comprise update frameworks which empower (human or artificial) agents to argue over time about the probability of outcomes, e.g. the winner of a political election or a fluctuation in inflation rates, whilst flagging perceived irrationality in the agents' behaviour with a view to improving their forecasting accuracy. FAFs include five argument types, amounting to standard pro/con arguments, as in bipolar argumentation, as well as novel proposal arguments and increase/decrease amendment arguments. We adapt an existing gradual semantics for bipolar argumentation to determine the aggregated dialectical strength of proposal arguments and define irrational behaviour. We then give a simple aggregation function which produces a final group forecast from rational agents' individual forecasts. We identify and study properties of FAFs and conduct an empirical evaluation which signals FAFs' potential to increase the forecasting accuracy of participants.