Argument Revision

Abstract

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.

Constraints and changes: A survey of abstract argumentation dynamics

“…This topic is out of the scope of the current paper, but a classification of the existing work on argumentation dynamics in structured frameworks is interesting (see e.g. Falappa et al [49], Moguillansky et al [59], Shakarian et al [64], Mailly [58] and Snaith and Reed [65]). Similarly to what is done here for abstract argumentation, this could highlight some open questions for these settings, and maybe some interesting relations with the work about abstract argumentation.…”

Enforcing Sets of Formulas in Structured Argumentation

“…Belief revision has also been combined with existing structured argumentation approaches. For example, (Snaith and Reed 2016) adjust the belief revision postulates to account for the structure of ASPIC +elements, thus modelling dynamic ASPIC + . Furthermore, non-prioritized belief revision is modelled in (Shakarian et al 2016) for a probabilistic variation of DeLP, and revision in logic-based argumentation is modeled in (Krümpelmann et al 2012).…”

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

“…For example, the question of whether and how an argumentation framework can be changed in order to enforce some result, such as the acceptance of a given set of arguments, is referred to as the enforcement problem [11,12,20,39,52,53,62]. Change in argumentation has furthermore been related to (or modelled using tools of) theories of belief change, often taking an AGM-inspired approach [13,14,25,34,[36][37][38]45,[48][49][50]57,59]. Computational issues in a dynamic setting have also been studied, such as efficiently (re)computing extensions after an argumentation framework changes [1,6,46].…”