Selective Revision by Deductive Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
The success postulate of classic belief revision theory demands that after revising some beliefs with by information the new information is believed. However, this form of prioritized belief revision is not apt under many circumstances. Research in non-prioritized belief revision investigates forms of belief revision where success is not a desirable property. Herein, selective revision uses a two step approach, first applying a transformation function to decide if and which part of the new information shall be accepted, and second, incorporating the result using a prioritized revision operator. In this paper, we implement a transformation function by employing deductive argumentation to assess the value of new information. Hereby we obtain a non-prioritized revision operator that only accepts new information if believing in the information is justifiable with respect to the beliefs. By making use of previous results on selective revision we prove that our revision operator satisfies several desirable properties. We illustrate the use of the revision operator by means of examples and compare it with related work.
منابع مشابه
Selective revision with multiple informants and argumentative support
We consider the problem of belief revision in a multi-agent system with information stemming from different agents with different degrees of credibility. In this context an agent has to carefully choose which information is to be accepted for revision in order to avoid believing in faulty and untrustworthy information. We propose a revision process combining selective revision, deductive argume...
متن کاملArgumentative Credibility-based Revision in Multi-Agent Systems
We consider the problem of belief revision in a multi-agent system with information stemming from different agents with different degrees of credibility. In this context an agent has to carefully choose which information is to be accepted for revision in order to avoid believing in faulty and untrustworthy information. We propose a revision process combining selective revision, deductive argume...
متن کاملUsing Enthymemes to Fill the Gap between Logical Argumentation and Revision of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
In this paper, we present a preliminary work on an approach to fill the gap between logic-based argumentation and the numerous approaches to tackle the dynamics of abstract argumentation frameworks. Our idea is that, even when arguments and attacks are defined by means of a logical belief base, there may be some uncertainty about how accurate is the content of an argument, and so the presence (...
متن کاملMerging Deductive and Abductive Knowledge Bases: An Argumentation Context Approach
The consideration of heterogenous knowledge sources for supporting decision making is key to accomplish informed decisions, e.g., about medical diagnosis. Consequently, merging different data from different knowledge bases is a key issue for providing support for decision-making. In this paper, we explore an argumentation context approach, which follows how medical professionals typically reaso...
متن کاملWhat Kind of Proof Can Be Constructed following an Abductive Argumentation?
My interests focus on the comparison between the abductive argumentation supporting a conjecture and the related proof. In particular, .the purpose of my research is to show the importance of a structural analysis between them (from an abductive argumentation to a deductive proof, from an abductive argumentation to an abductive “proof”). I propose the Toulmin’s model as a tool which can be used...
متن کامل