{"type":"ScholarlyArticle","title":"Two Sides of the Same Coin: Belief Revision and Enforcing Arguments","authors":[{"name":"Adrian Haret","slug":"adrian-haret","given":"Adrian","family":"Haret","affiliation":"Institute of Logic and Computation , TU Wien , Austria"},{"name":"Johannes P. Wallner","slug":"johannes-p-wallner","given":"Johannes P.","family":"Wallner","affiliation":"Institute of Logic and Computation , TU Wien , Austria"},{"name":"Stefan Woltran","slug":"stefan-woltran","given":"Stefan","family":"Woltran","affiliation":"Institute of Logic and Computation , TU Wien , Austria"}],"abstract":"We study a type of change on knowledge bases inspired by the dynamics of formal argumentation systems, where the goal is to enforce acceptance of certain arguments. We put forward that enforcing acceptance of arguments can be viewed as a member of the wider family of belief change operations, and that an axiomatic treatment of it is therefore desirable. In our case, laying down axioms enables a precise account of the close connection between enforcing arguments and belief revision. Our analysis of enforcing arguments proceeds by (i) axiomatizing it as an operation in propositional logic and providing a representation result in terms of rankings on sets of interpretations, (ii) showing that it stands in close relationship to belief revision, and (iii) using it as a gateway towards a principled treatment of enforcement in abstract argumentation.","doi":"10.24963/ijcai.2018/256","url":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2018/256","pdf":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2018/0256.pdf","markdown":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2018/256.md","bibtex":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2018/bibtex/256","volume":{"slug":"2018","title":"Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"IJCAI 2018","url":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2018/","year":2018,"location":"Stockholm","dates":"13-19 July 2018","editors":"Jérôme Lang","isbn":"978-0-9992411-2-7","publisher":"International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization","doi_prefix":"10.24963/ijcai.2018"},"section":"Knowledge Representation and Reasoning","track":"Main track","number":256,"pages":{"first":1854,"last":1860},"keywords":["Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Computational Models of Argument","Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Belief Change"],"videos":[],"references":[{"position":1,"raw":"[Alchourrón et al., 1985] C. E. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symb. Log., 50(2):510-530, 1985.","title":"On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions","authors":"C E Alchourrón, P Gärdenfors, D Makinson","year":"1985","venue":"J. Symb. Log","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":2,"raw":"[Baumann and Brewka, 2010] R. Baumann and G. Brewka. Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In Proc. COMMA, pages 75-86, 2010.","title":"Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results","authors":"R Baumann, G Brewka","year":"2010","venue":"Proc. COMMA","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":3,"raw":"[Baumann, 2012a] R. Baumann. Normal and strong expan- sion equivalence for argumentation frameworks. Artif. In- tell., 193:18-44, 2012.","title":"Normal and strong expansion equivalence for argumentation frameworks","authors":"; R Baumann, Baumann","year":"2012","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":4,"raw":"[Baumann, 2012b] R. Baumann. What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation. In Proc. ECAI, pages 127-132, 2012.","title":"What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation","authors":"; R Baumann, Baumann","year":"2012","venue":"Proc. ECAI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":5,"raw":"[Bench-Capon and Dunne, 2007] T. J. M. Bench-Capon and P. E. Dunne. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell., 171(10-15):619-641, 2007.","title":"Argumentation in artificial intelligence","authors":"T J M Bench-Capon, P E Dunne","year":"2007","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":6,"raw":"[Booth et al., 2013] R. Booth, S. Kaci, T. Rienstra, and L. W. N. van der Torre. A logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation. In Proc. SUM, pages 148-161, 2013.","title":"A logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation","authors":"R Booth, S Kaci, T Rienstra, L W N Van Der Torre","year":"2013","venue":"Proc. SUM","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":7,"raw":"[Cayrol et al., 2010] C. Cayrol, F. Dupin de Saint-Cyr, and M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex. Change in abstract argumenta- tion frameworks: Adding an argument. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 38:49-84, 2010.","title":"Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument","authors":"C Cayrol, F Dupin De Saint-Cyr, M.-C Lagasquie-Schiex","year":"2010","venue":"J. Artif. Intell. Res","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":8,"raw":"[Coste-Marquis et al., 2015] S.Coste-Marquis, S.Konieczny, J.-G. Mailly, and P. Marquis. Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem. In Proc. IJCAI, pages 2876-2882, 2015.","title":"Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem","authors":"S Coste-Marquis, S Konieczny, J.-G Mailly, P Marquis","year":"2015","venue":"Proc. IJCAI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":"/proceedings/2015/407"},{"position":9,"raw":"[Creignou et al., 2014] N. Creignou, O. Papini, R. Pichler, and S. Woltran. Belief revision within fragments of propo- sitional logic. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 80(2):427-449, 2014.","title":"Belief revision within fragments of propositional logic","authors":"N Creignou, O Papini, R Pichler, S Woltran","year":"2014","venue":"J. Comput. Syst. Sci","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":10,"raw":"[Dalal, 1988] M.Dalal. Investigations into a theory of knowl- edge base revision. In Proc. AAAI, pages 475-479, 1988.","title":"Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision","authors":"M","year":"1988","venue":"Proc. AAAI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":11,"raw":"[de Saint-Cyr et al., 2016] F. Dupin de Saint-Cyr, P. Bis- quert, C. Cayrol, and M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex. Argumen- tation update in YALLA (Yet Another Logic Language for Argumentation). Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, 75:57-92, 2016.","title":"Argumentation update in YALLA (Yet Another Logic Language for Argumentation)","authors":"F Dupin De Saint-Cyr, P Bisquert, C Cayrol, M.-C Lagasquie-Schiex","year":"2016","venue":"Int. J. Approx. Reasoning","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":12,"raw":"[Delgrande and Peppas, 2015] J. P. Delgrande and P. Peppas. Belief revision in Horn theories. Artif. Intell., 218:1-22, 2015.","title":"Belief revision in Horn theories","authors":"J P Delgrande, P Peppas","year":"2015","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":13,"raw":"[Doutre et al., 2014] S. Doutre, A. Herzig, and L. Perrussel. A dynamic logic framework for abstract argumentation. In Proc. KR, pages 62-71, 2014.","title":"A dynamic logic framework for abstract argumentation","authors":"S Doutre, A Herzig, L Perrussel","year":"2014","venue":"Proc. KR","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":14,"raw":"[Dubois et al., 2017] D. Dubois, E. Lorini, and H. Prade. The strength of desires: A logical approach. Minds and Machines, 27(1):199-231, 2017.","title":"The strength of desires: A logical approach","authors":"D Dubois, E Lorini, H Prade","year":"2017","venue":"Minds and Machines","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":15,"raw":"[Dung, 1995] P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of argu- ments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reason- ing, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell., 77(2):321-358, 1995.","title":"On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games","authors":"P M Dung","year":"1995","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":16,"raw":"[Dunne et al., 2015] P. E. Dunne, W. Dvořák, T. Linsbichler, and S. Woltran. Characteristics of multiple viewpoints in abstract argumentation. Artif. Intell., 228:153-178, 2015.","title":"Characteristics of multiple viewpoints in abstract argumentation","authors":"P E Dunne, W Dvořák, T Linsbichler, S Woltran","year":"2015","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":17,"raw":"[Falappa et al., 2011] M. A. Falappa, A. J. García, G. Kern- Isberner, and G. R. Simari. On the evolving relation be- tween belief revision and argumentation. Knowledge Eng. Review, 26(1):35-43, 2011.","title":"On the evolving relation between belief revision and argumentation","authors":"M A Falappa, A J García, G Kern-Isberner, G R Simari","year":"2011","venue":"Knowledge Eng. Review","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":18,"raw":"[Fermé et al., 2013] E. L. Fermé, D. M. Gabbay, and G. R. Simari, editors. Trends in Belief Revision and Argumenta- tion Dynamics. 2013.","title":"Trends in Belief Revision and Argumentation Dynamics","authors":null,"year":"2013","venue":null,"doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":19,"raw":"[Gärdenfors and Makinson, 1988] P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson. Revisions of Knowledge Systems Using Epis- temic Entrenchment. In Proc. TARK, pages 83-95, 1988.","title":"Revisions of Knowledge Systems Using Epistemic Entrenchment","authors":"P Gärdenfors, D Makinson","year":"1988","venue":"Proc. TARK","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":20,"raw":"[Gärdenfors, 1988] P. Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux: Mod- elling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. 1988.","title":"Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States","authors":"P Gärdenfors","year":"1988","venue":null,"doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":21,"raw":"[Grove, 1988] A. Grove. Two modellings for theory change. J. Philosophical Logic, 17(2):157-170, 1988.","title":"Two modellings for theory change","authors":"A Grove","year":"1988","venue":"J. Philosophical Logic","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":22,"raw":"[Hansson, 1999] S. O. Hansson. A survey of non-prioritized belief revision. Erkenntnis, 50(2):413-427, 1999.","title":"A survey of non-prioritized belief revision","authors":"S O Hansson","year":"1999","venue":"Erkenntnis","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":23,"raw":"[Hansson, 2015] S. O. Hansson. A monoselective presenta- tion of AGM revision. Studia Logica, 103(5):1019-1033, 2015.","title":"A monoselective presentation of AGM revision","authors":"S O Hansson","year":"2015","venue":"Studia Logica","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":24,"raw":"[Katsuno and Mendelzon, 1992] H. Katsuno and A. O. Mendelzon. Propositional Knowledge Base Revision and Minimal Change. Artif. Intell., 52(3):263-294, 1992.","title":"Propositional Knowledge Base Revision and Minimal Change","authors":"H Katsuno, A O Mendelzon","year":"1992","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":25,"raw":"[Lindström and Rabinowicz, 1989] S. Lindström and W. Ra- binowicz. Epistemic entrenchment with incomparabili- ties and relational belief revision. In The Logic of Theory Change, pages 93-126, 1989.","title":"Epistemic entrenchment with incomparabilities and relational belief revision","authors":"S Lindström, W Rabinowicz","year":"1989","venue":"The Logic of Theory Change","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":26,"raw":"[Meyer et al., 2000] T. A. Meyer, W. A. Labuschagne, and J. Heidema. Refined Epistemic Entrenchment. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 9(2):237-259, 2000.","title":"Refined Epistemic Entrenchment","authors":"T A Meyer, W A Labuschagne, J Heidema","year":"2000","venue":"Journal of Logic, Language and Information","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":27,"raw":"[Moguillansky and Simari, 2016] M. Moguillansky and G. R. Simari. A specialized set theoretic semantics for acceptability dynamics of arguments. In Proc. COMMA, pages 391-402, 2016.","title":"A specialized set theoretic semantics for acceptability dynamics of arguments","authors":"M Moguillansky, G R Simari","year":"2016","venue":"Proc. COMMA","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":28,"raw":"[Moguillansky et al., 2013] M. O. Moguillansky, N. D. Rot- stein, M. A. Falappa, A. J. García, and G. R. Simari. Dy- namics of knowledge in DeLP through argument theory change. TPLP, 13(6):893-957, 2013.","title":"Dynamics of knowledge in DeLP through argument theory change","authors":"M O Moguillansky, N D Rotstein, M A Falappa, A J García, G R Simari","year":"2013","venue":"TPLP","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":29,"raw":"[Niskanen et al., 2016] A. Niskanen, J. P. Wallner, and M. Järvisalo. Synthesizing argumentation frameworks from examples. In Proc. ECAI, pages 551-559, 2016.","title":"Synthesizing argumentation frameworks from examples","authors":"A Niskanen, J P Wallner, M Järvisalo","year":"2016","venue":"Proc. ECAI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":30,"raw":"[Paglieri and Castelfranchi, 2004] F. Paglieri and C. Castel- franchi. Revising beliefs through arguments: Bridging the gap between argumentation and belief revision in MAS. In Proc. ArgMAS, pages 78-94, 2004.","title":"Revising beliefs through arguments: Bridging the gap between argumentation and belief revision in MAS","authors":"F Paglieri, C Castelfranchi","year":"2004","venue":"Proc. ArgMAS","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":31,"raw":"[Rott, 1992] H. Rott. Preferential belief change using gen- eralized epistemic entrenchment. Journal of Logic, Lan- guage and Information, 1(1):45-78, 1992.","title":"Preferential belief change using generalized epistemic entrenchment","authors":"H Rott","year":"1992","venue":"Journal of Logic, Language and Information","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":32,"raw":"[Wallner et al., 2017] J. P. Wallner, A. Niskanen, and M. Järvisalo. Complexity results and algorithms for ex- tension enforcement in abstract argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 60:1-40, 2017.","title":"Complexity results and algorithms for extension enforcement in abstract argumentation","authors":"J P Wallner, A Niskanen, M Järvisalo","year":"2017","venue":"J. Artif. Intell. Res","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null}],"license_note":"Copyright International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence."}