Argument Theory Change: Revision Upon Warrant
نویسندگان
چکیده
We propose an abstract argumentation theory whose dynamics is captured by the application of belief revision concepts. The theory is deemed as abstract because both the underlying logic for arguments and argumentative semantics remain unspecified. Regarding our approach to argument theory change, we define some basic change operations along with their necessary theoretical elements towards the definition of a warrant-prioritized revision operation. This kind of revision expands the theory by an argument and then applies a contraction ensuring that the added argument can be believed afterwards.
منابع مشابه
Dynamics 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 کاملInconsistent-tolerant base revision through Argument Theory Change
Reasoning and change over inconsistent knowledge bases (KBs) is of utmost relevance in areas like medicine and law. Argumentation may bring the possibility to cope with both problems. Firstly, by constructing an argumentation framework (AF) from the inconsistent KB, we can decide whether to accept or reject a certain claim through the interplay among arguments and counterarguments. Secondly, by...
متن کاملTestimony and a Priori Knowledge
Tyler Burge offers a theory of testimony that allows for the possibility of both testimonial a priori warrant and testimonial a priori knowledge. I uncover a tension in his account of the relationship between the two, and locate its source in the analogy that Burge draws between testimonial warrant and preservative memory. I contend that this analogy should be rejected, and offer a revision of ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2008