A Translation-Based Approach for Revision of Argumentation Frameworks

In this paper, we investigate the revision issue for Dung argumentation frameworks. The main idea is that such frameworks can be translated into propositional formulae, allowing the use of propositional revision operators to perform a rational minimal change. Our translation-based approach to revising argumentation frameworks can take advantage of any propositional revision operator '—i¾?. Via a translation, each propositional operator '—i¾? can be associated with some revision operators i¾? suited to argumentation frameworks. Some rationality postulates for the i¾? operators are presented. If the revision formulae are restricted to formulae about acceptance statuses, some i¾? operators satisfy these postulates provided that the corresponding '—i¾? operator is AGM.

[1]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Change in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks: Adding an Argument , 2010, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[2]  Ringo Baumann.  What Does it Take to Enforce an Argument? Minimal Change in abstract Argumentation , 2012, ECAI.

[3]  Jeff Z. Pan,et al.  An Argument-Based Approach to Using Multiple Ontologies , 2009, SUM.

[4]  Andreas Herzig,et al.  Encoding Argument Graphs in Logic , 2014, IPMU.

[5]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On the Revision of Argumentation Systems: Minimal Change of Arguments Statuses , 2014, KR.

[6]  Andreas Herzig,et al.  A Dynamic Logic Framework for Abstract Argumentation , 2014, KR.

[7]  Adam J. Grove,et al.  Two modellings for theory change , 1988, J. Philos. Log..

[8]  Ringo Baumann,et al.  Expanding Argumentation Frameworks: Enforcing and Monotonicity Results , 2010, COMMA.

[9]  Richard W. Hamming,et al.  Error detecting and error correcting codes , 1950 .

[10]  Mukesh Dalal,et al.  Investigations into a Theory of Knowledge Base Revision , 1988, AAAI.

[11]  Guido Boella,et al.  Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: attack refinement and the grounded extension , 2009, AAMAS.

[12]  Hirofumi Katsuno,et al.  Propositional Knowledge Base Revision and Minimal Change , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Jean Lieber,et al.  Belief revision-based case-based reasoning , 2012 .

[14]  Guido Boella,et al.  Dynamics in Argumentation with Single Extensions: Abstraction Principles and the Grounded Extension , 2009, ECSQARU.

[15]  Laurent Perrussel,et al.  On Enforcing a Constraint in Argumentation , 2013 .

[16]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Enforcement in Argumentation Is a Kind of Update , 2013, SUM.

[17]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Revision by Translation , 2000 .

[18]  Michael Clarke,et al.  Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty , 1991, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[19]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Change in Argumentation Systems: Exploring the Interest of Removing an Argument , 2011, SUM.

[21]  Philippe Besnard,et al.  Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments , 2004, NMR.

[22]  Katie Atkinson,et al.  Algorithms for decision problems in argument systems under preferred semantics , 2014, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Leon van der Torre,et al.  A Logical Theory about Dynamics in Abstract Argumentation , 2013, SUM.

[24]  Ronald R. Yager,et al.  Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems , 2014, Communications in Computer and Information Science.

[25]  Ulises Cortés,et al.  Inferring Preferred Extensions by Minimal Models , 2007 .

[26]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.