Measuring minimal change in argument premise revision
نویسندگان
چکیده
The field of belief revision studies how information can be given up in the face of new, conflicting information, while argumentation provides methods through which conflict can be modelled and the resultant acceptability of arguments evaluated. Prominent theories of belief revision depend on the notion of minimal change, measured in terms of epistemic entrenchment, to determine what beliefs to give up. In this paper, we take an initial look at the effects of removing an argument from a system of structured argumentation, in terms of both argument construction and acceptability, and how these can be used in the determination of minimal change.
منابع مشابه
Argument Revision
Understanding the dynamics of argumentation systems is a crucial component in the development of computational models of argument that are used as representations of belief. To that end, in this article, we introduce a model of Argument Revision, presented in terms of the contraction and revision of a system of structured argumentation. Argument Revision is influenced by theAGM model of belief ...
متن کاملDynamics of knowledge in DeLP through Argument Theory Change
1 This article is devoted to the study of methods to change defeasible logic programs (de.l.p.s) which are the knowledge bases used by the Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) interpreter. DeLP is an argumentation formalism that allows to reason over potentially inconsistent de.l.p.s. Argument Theory Change (ATC) studies certain aspects of belief revision in order to make them suitable for abstr...
متن کاملA Preliminary Reification of Argument Theory Change
In this article we introduce the basics for understanding the mechanisms of Argument Theory Change. In particular we reify it using Defeasible Logic Programming. In this formalism, knowledge bases are represented through defeasible logic programs. The main change operation we define over a defeasible logic program is a special kind of revision that inserts a new argument and then modifies the r...
متن کاملArgument Theory Change Applied to Defeasible Logic Programming
In this article we work on certain aspects of the belief change theory in order to make them suitable for argumentation systems. This approach is based on Defeasible Logic Programming as the argumentation formalism from which we ground the definitions. The objective of our proposal is to define an argument revision operator that inserts a new argument into a defeasible logic program in such a w...
متن کاملRanking Revision Reloaded
Ranking measures are coarse-grained, quasi-probabilistic plausibility valuations measuring the degree of surprise. Since Spohn’s work on the subclass of natural conditional functions, they have been used to model epistemic states and their dynamics. The simplest instance may be elementary ranking revision, which is a non-parametrized version of Spohn-style revision based on minimal Jeffreycondi...
متن کامل