Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:11:09.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the evolving relation between Belief Revision and Argumentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2011

Marcelo A. Falappa ,
Alejandro J. García ,
Gabriele Kern-Isberner  and
Guillermo R. Simari
Marcelo A. Falappa*
Affiliation:
Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Av. L.N. Alem 1253, B8000CPB, Bahía Blanca, Argentina; e-mail: mfalappa@cs.uns.edu.ar; ajg@cs.uns.edu.ar; grs@cs.uns.edu.ar
Alejandro J. García*
Affiliation:
Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Av. L.N. Alem 1253, B8000CPB, Bahía Blanca, Argentina; e-mail: mfalappa@cs.uns.edu.ar; ajg@cs.uns.edu.ar; grs@cs.uns.edu.ar
Gabriele Kern-Isberner*
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Dortmund, Otto-Hahn-Str. 16, 44227Dortmund, Germany; e-mail: gabriele.kern-isberner@cs.uni-dortmund.de
Guillermo R. Simari*
Affiliation:
Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Av. L.N. Alem 1253, B8000CPB, Bahía Blanca, Argentina; e-mail: mfalappa@cs.uns.edu.ar; ajg@cs.uns.edu.ar; grs@cs.uns.edu.ar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research on the relation between Belief Revision and Argumentation has always been fruitful in both directions: some argumentation formalisms can be used to define belief change operators, and belief change techniques have also been used for modeling the dynamics of beliefs in argumentation formalisms. In this paper, we give a historical perspective on how belief revision has evolved in the last three decades, and how it has been combined with argumentation. First, we will recall the foundational works concerning the links between both areas. On the basis of such insights, we will present a conceptual view on this topic and some further developments. We offer a glimpse into the future of research in this area based on the understanding of argumentation and belief revision as complementary, mutually useful disciplines.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 26 , Special Issue 1: 25th Anniversary Issue , 07 February 2011 , pp. 35 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alchourrón, C., Makinson, D. 1981. Hierarchies of regulation and their logic. In Hilpinen, R. (ed.), New Studies in Deontic Logic, 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alchourrón, C., Makinson, D. 1985. On the logic of theory change: safe contraction. Studia Logica, D. Reidel Publishing Company 44, 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D. 1985. On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H. 1995. How to infer from inconsistent beliefs without revising. In Proceedings of IJCAI'95. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1449–1455.Google Scholar
Boella, G., da Costa Perera, C., Tettamanzi, A., van der Torre, L. 2008a. Dung argumentation and AGM belief revision (position paper). In Fifth International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS), Estoril, Portugal.Google Scholar
Boella, G., da Costa Perera, C., Tettamanzi, A., van der Torre, L. 2008b. Making others believe what they want. In IFIP 20th World Computer Congress, TC 12 IFIP AI 2008, Milan, Italy, 215–224.Google Scholar
Boutilier, C., Becher, V. 1993. Abduction as belief revision: a model of preferred explanations. In AAAI, Washington, DC, USA, 642–648.Google Scholar
Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F. D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. 2010. Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: adding an argument. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 84, 49–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Kleer, J. 1986. An assumption-based TMS. Artificial Intelligence 28(2), 127–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, J. 1979. A truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence 12, 231–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, J. 1992. Reason maintenance and belief revision: foundations versus coherence theories. In Belief Revision, Gärdenfors, P. (ed.). Cambridge University Press, 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falappa, M. A., Kern-Isberner, G., Simari, G. R. 2002. Belief revision, explanations and defeasible reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Journal 141, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falappa, M. A., Kern-Isberner, G., Simari, G. R. 2009. Belief revision and argumentation theory. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Rahwan, I. & Simari, G. R. (eds). chapter 17, Springer, 341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, A. J., Simari, G. R. 2004. Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1), 95–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. 1982. Rule for rational changes of belief. In Philosophical Essay Dediccated To Lennart Åqvist on his Fiftieth Birthday, Pauli, T. (ed.), University of Uppsala, Sweden, 88–101.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. 1988. Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. The MIT Press, Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. 1992. Belief Revision. Cambridge University Press, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D. 1988. Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. In Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge. Asilomar, California, USA, 83–95.Google Scholar
Grove, A. 1988. Two modellings for theory change. The Journal of Philosophical Logic 17, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O. 1994. Kernel contraction. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 59, 845–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O. 1997. Theoria: Special Issue on Non-Prioritized Belief Revision. Department of Philosophy, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Hansson, S. O. 1999. A Textbook of Belief Dymanics: Theory Change and Database Updating. Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O., Fermé, E., Cantwell, J., Falappa, M. 2001. Credibility limited revision. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 66(4), 1581–1596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, W. 1975. Rational belief change, popper functions and counterfactuals. Synthese 30, 221–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A. 1992. On the difference between updating a knowledge database and revising it. In Belief Revision, Gärdenfors, P. (ed.), Cambridge University Press, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I. 1977. Subjunctives, dispositions and chances. Synthese 34(4), 423–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1973. Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Moguillansky, M. O., Rotstein, N. D., Falappa, M. A., García, A. J., Simari, G. R. 2008. Argument theory change applied to defeasible logic programming. In Proceedings of The Twenty-Third Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI'2008. Chicago, Illinois, USA, 132–137.Google Scholar
Newell, A. 1982. The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence 18, 87–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paglieri, F., Castelfranchi, C. 2006. The Toulmin test: Framing argumentation within belief revision theories. In Arguing on the Toulmin model, Hitchcock, D. & Verheij, B. (eds), Springer, 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J. L., Gillies, A. S. 2000. Belief revision and epistemology. Synthese 122(1–2), 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotstein, N. D., Moguillansky, M. O., Falappa, M. A., García, A. J., Simari, G. R. 2008. Argument theory change: revision upon warrant. In Proceedings of the Computational Models of Argument, COMMA'2008. Toulouse, France, 336–347.Google Scholar
Rott, H. 1992. Preferential belief change using generalized epistemic entrenchment. The Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1, 45–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M.-A., Pagnucco, M., Foo, N., Sims, B. 1995. Determining explanations using transmutations. In Proceedings of IJCAI-95. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 822–830.Google Scholar