Belief Revision and Argumentation Theory

Falappa, Marcelo Alejandro; Kern-Isberner, Gabriele; Simari, Guillermo Ricardo

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_17

Cited by 36 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Connections between argumentation and belief revision have recently found new momentum [23,24,26] with the emergence of two broad approaches-the use of argumentation to support belief revision (e.g. [25,31]) and the use of belief revision operators to model change in argumentation systems (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument Revision

Snaith¹,

Reed²

2016

J Logic Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 revision, but with certain key differences. First,Argument Revision involves modifying the underlying model (system of argumentation) from which beliefs are derived, allowing for a finer-grained approach to modifying beliefs. Secondly, the richer structure provided by a system of argumentation permits a determination of minimal change based on quantifiable effects on the system as opposed to qualitative criteria such as entrenchment orderings. Argument Revision does, however, retain a close link to the AGM approach to belief revision. A basic set of postulates for rational revisions and contractions in Argument Revision is proposed; these postulates are influenced by, and capture the spirit of, those found in AGM belief revision. After specifying a determination of minimal change, based on measurable effects on the system, we conclude the article by going on to show how Argument Revision can be used as a strategic tool by a participant in a multi-agent dialogue, assisting with commitment retraction and dishonesty. In systems of argumentation that contain even small knowledge bases, it is difficult for a dialogue participant to fully assess the impact of seemingly trivial changes to that knowledge base, or other parts of the system; we demonstrate, by means of an example, that Argument Revision solves this problem through a determination of minimal change that is justifiable and intuitive.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument Revision

Snaith¹,

Reed²

2016

J Logic Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, it is worth investigating the link between social belief removal and argumentation systems, and the work done in this context related to belief change (Falappa et al 2009). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equilibria in social belief removal

Booth

Meyer²

2010

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In studies of multi-agent interaction, especially in game theory, the notion of equilibrium often plays a prominent role. A typical scenario for the belief merging problem is one in which several agents pool their beliefs together to form a consistent "group" picture of the world. The aim of this paper is to define and study new notions of equilibria in belief merging. To do so, we assume the agents arrive at consistency via the use of a social belief removal function, in which each agent, using his own individual removal function, removes some belief from his stock of beliefs. We examine several notions of equilibria in this setting, assuming a general framework for individual belief removal due to Booth et al. We look at their inter-relations as well as prove their existence or otherwise. We also show how our equilibria can be seen as a generalisation of the idea of taking maximal consistent subsets of agents.

show abstract

“…The relationship between argumentation and belief revision can be traced back to [10]; in this regard, the work that is most closely related to how we approach their combination is that of [14], where explanation-based revision operators are studied. For a discussion on the relationship between the two areas of study, see [15] and [13].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A quantitative approach to belief revision in structured probabilistic argumentation

Simari

Shakarian

Falappa

2015

Ann Math Artif Intell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many real-world knowledge-based systems must deal with information coming from different sources that invariably leads to incompleteness, overspecification, or inherently uncertain content. The presence of these varying levels of uncertainty doesn't mean that the information is worthless -rather, these are hurdles that the knowledge engineer must learn to work with. In this paper, we continue work on an argumentation-based framework that extends the well-known Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) language with probabilistic uncertainty, giving rise to the Defeasible Logic Programming with Presumptions and Probabilistic Environments (DeLP3E) model. Our prior work focused on the problem of belief revision in DeLP3E, where we proposed a non-prioritized class of revision operators called AFO (Annotation Function-based Operators) to solve this problem. In this paper, we further study this class and argue that in some cases it may be desirable to define revision operators that take quantitative aspects into account, such as how the probabilities of certain literals or formulas of interest change after the revision takes place. To the best of our knowledge, this problem has not been addressed in the argumentation literature to date. We propose the QAFO (Quantitative Annotation Function-based Operators) class of operators, a subclass of AFO, and then go on to study the complexity of several problems related to their specification and application in revising knowledge bases. Finally, we present an 376 G. I. Simari et al.algorithm for computing the probability that a literal is warranted in a DeLP3E knowledge base, and discuss how it could be applied towards implementing QAFO-style operators that compute approximations rather than exact operations.

show abstract

Belief Revision and Argumentation Theory

Cited by 36 publications

References 31 publications

Argument Revision

Argument Revision

Equilibria in social belief removal

A quantitative approach to belief revision in structured probabilistic argumentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About