Abstract
We analyze the acceptability dynamics of arguments through the proposal of two different kinds of minimal sets of arguments, core and remainder sets which are somehow responsible for the acceptability/rejection of a given argument. We develop a study of the consequences of breaking the construction of such sets towards the acceptance, and/or rejection, of an analyzed argument. This brings about the proposal of novel change operations for abstract argumentation first, and for logic-based argumentation, afterwards. The analysis upon logic-based argumentation shows some problems regarding the applicability of the standard semantics. In consequence, a reformulation of the notion of admissibility arises for accommodating the standard semantics upon logic-based argumentation. Finally, the proposed model is formalized in the light of the theory of belief revision by characterizing the corresponding operations through rationality postulates and representation theorems.
Supported by UNS (PGI 24/ZN18) and CONICET (PIP 112-200801-02798).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Observe that we use the notation \(\wp (\varTheta ) \) for referring to the powerset of \(\varTheta \).
- 2.
Inverting the Levi identity leads to an inconsistent intermediate state. This is not an issue in argumentation since we only incorporate new pairs to the defeat relation.
References
Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530 (1985)
Amgoud, L.: Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55(9), 2028–2048 (2014)
Baumann, R.: What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation. In: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, ECAI 2012, Montpellier, France, vol. 242, pp. 127–132. IOS Press (2012)
Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: enforcing and monotonicity results. In: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, COMMA 2010, D. del Garda, Italy, vol. 216, pp. 75–86. IOS Press (2010)
Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: AGM meets abstract argumentation: expansion and revision for dung frameworks. In: Yang and Wooldridge [21], pp. 2734–2740
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)
Booth, R., Caminada, M., Podlaszewski, M., Rahwan, I.: Quantifying disagreement in argument-based reasoning. In: AAMAS 2012, IFAAMAS, pp. 493–500, Valencia, Spain (2012)
Booth, R., Kaci, S., Rienstra, T., van der Torre, L.: A logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8078, pp. 148–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.-G., Marquis, P.: A translation-based approach for revision of argumentation frameworks. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8761, pp. 397–411. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J., Marquis, P.: On the revision of argumentation systems: minimal change of arguments statuses. In: KR 2014, Vienna, Austria. AAAI Press (2014)
Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J., Marquis, P.: Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem. In: Yang and Wooldridge [21], pp. 2876–2882
Diller, M., Haret, A., Linsbichler, T., Rümmele, S., Woltran, S.: An extension-based approach to belief revision in abstract argumentation. In: Yang and Wooldridge [21], pp. 2926–2932
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)
Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. The MIT Press, Bradford Books, Cambridge (1988)
Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: postulates and properties. Artif. Intell. 175(9–10), 1479–1497 (2011)
Hansson, S.O.: A Textbook of Belief Dynamics. Theory Change and Database Updating. Kluwer Academic, London (1999)
Levi, I.: Subjunctives, dispositions and chances. Synthese 34(4), 423–455 (1977)
Moguillansky, M.O., Rotstein, N.D., Falappa, M.A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument theory change applied to defeasible logic programming. In: Fox, D., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) AAAI, pp. 132–137. AAAI Press (2008)
Moguillansky, M.O., Wassermann, R., Falappa, M.A.: Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change. Logic J. IGPL 20(1), 154–186 (2012)
Rotstein, N.D., Moguillansky, M.O., Falappa, M.A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument theory change: revision upon warrant. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 336–347 (2008)
Yang, Q., Wooldridge, M. (eds.): Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2015. AAAI Press, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25–31 July 2015
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Moguillansky, M.O. (2016). A Study of Argument Acceptability Dynamics Through Core and Remainder Sets. In: Gyssens, M., Simari, G. (eds) Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems. FoIKS 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9616. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30024-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30024-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30023-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-30024-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)