Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through Argument Theory Change

  title={Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through Argument Theory Change},
  author={Mart{\'i}n O. Moguillansky and Renata Wassermann and Marcelo A. Falappa},
  journal={Log. J. IGPL},
Fil: Moguillansky, Martin Oscar. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Centro Cientifico Tecnologico Conicet - Bahia Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingenieria de la Computacion. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingenieria de la Computacion. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingenieria de la Computacion; Argentina 

Dynamics of knowledge in DeLP through Argument Theory Change

This article proposes to define prioritized argument revision operators à la ATC for de.l.p.s, in such a way that the newly inserted argument ends up undefeated after the revision, thus warranting its conclusion.

Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems

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

Hypotheses and their dynamics in legal argumentation

On argument acceptability change towards legal interpretation dynamics

A formal theory built upon an abstract argumentation framework for handling argumentation dynamics and a possible concretisation of the abstract theory is shown by analysing a real legal case from the Argentinean jurisprudence.

A Study of Argument Acceptability Dynamics Through Core and Remainder Sets

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

A principle-based robustness analysis of admissibility-based argumentation semantics

This paper classify seven of the main alternatives for argumentation semantics using a set of new robustness principles, which complement Baroni and Giacomin's original classification and deal with the behaviour of a semantics when the argumentation framework changes due to the addition or removal of an attack between two arguments.

Dynamics of the Judicial Process by Defeater Activation

A novel activating approach to Argument Theory Change (ATC) is presented to contribute to the discussion of how to deal with circumstances of the judicial process like hypothetical reasoning for conducting investigations of a legal case, and for handling the dynamics of the Judicial process.

Argumentation corner 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

Argument Revision

This article introduces a model of Argument Revision, presented in terms of the contraction and revision of a system of structured argumentation, and shows how it can be used as a strategic tool by a participant in a multi-agent dialogue, assisting with commitment retraction and dishonesty.



Argument Theory Change Applied to Defeasible Logic Programming

The objective of this proposal is to define an argument revision operator that inserts a new argument into a defeasible logic program in such a way that this argument ends up undefeated after the revision, thus warranting its conclusion.

Argument Theory Change: Revision Upon Warrant

An abstract argumentation theory whose dynamics is captured by the application of belief revision concepts and some basic change operations along with their necessary theoretical elements towards the definition of a warrant-prioritized revision operation are defined.

A Lattice-Based Approach to Computing Warranted Beliefs in Skeptical Argumentation Frameworks

It is shown that such search space can be defined as a lattice, and it is illustrated how the so-called dialectical constraints can play a role for guiding the efficient computation of warranted arguments.

Belief Revision And Epistemology

It is argued that there is no way to repair the definitions of belief revision so as to retain the spirit of those theory, and belief revision is better studied from within an independently motivated epistemological theory.

Argument Theory Change Through Defeater Activation

The present article copes with the problem of how the framework has to be modified in order to achieve warrant for a certain argument by defining a revision operator based on activation of arguments, i.e., recognizing the knowledge that is missing.

The Toulmin Test: Framing Argumentation within Belief Revision Theories

This essay endeavour to bring together argumentation and belief revision in the same conceptual framework, and to highlight the important role played by Toulmin’s layout of argument in fostering such integration.

Explanations, belief revision and defeasible reasoning

Dialectical Abstract Argumentation: A Characterization of the Marking Criterion

The objective of this work is to formulate rationality postulates to characterize the marking criterion over dialectical trees to benefit research on dynamics in argumentation.

On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics

Making Others Believe What They Want

This work proposes an approach whereby the best argument is defined as the one which is both rational and the most appealing to the addressee.