A Study of Argument Acceptability Dynamics Through Core and Remainder Sets

  • Martín O. MoguillanskyEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9616)


We analyze the acceptability dynamics of arguments through the proposal of two different kinds of minimal sets of arguments, core and remainder sets which are somehow responsible for the acceptability/rejection of a given argument. We develop a study of the consequences of breaking the construction of such sets towards the acceptance, and/or rejection, of an analyzed argument. This brings about the proposal of novel change operations for abstract argumentation first, and for logic-based argumentation, afterwards. The analysis upon logic-based argumentation shows some problems regarding the applicability of the standard semantics. In consequence, a reformulation of the notion of admissibility arises for accommodating the standard semantics upon logic-based argumentation. Finally, the proposed model is formalized in the light of the theory of belief revision by characterizing the corresponding operations through rationality postulates and representation theorems.


Argumentation Belief revision Argumentation dynamics 


  1. 1.
    Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L.: Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55(9), 2028–2048 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumann, R.: What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation. In: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, ECAI 2012, Montpellier, France, vol. 242, pp. 127–132. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: enforcing and monotonicity results. In: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, COMMA 2010, D. del Garda, Italy, vol. 216, pp. 75–86. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: AGM meets abstract argumentation: expansion and revision for dung frameworks. In: Yang and Wooldridge [21], pp. 2734–2740Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Booth, R., Caminada, M., Podlaszewski, M., Rahwan, I.: Quantifying disagreement in argument-based reasoning. In: AAMAS 2012, IFAAMAS, pp. 493–500, Valencia, Spain (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Booth, R., Kaci, S., Rienstra, T., van der Torre, L.: A logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8078, pp. 148–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.-G., Marquis, P.: A translation-based approach for revision of argumentation frameworks. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8761, pp. 397–411. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J., Marquis, P.: On the revision of argumentation systems: minimal change of arguments statuses. In: KR 2014, Vienna, Austria. AAAI Press (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J., Marquis, P.: Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem. In: Yang and Wooldridge [21], pp. 2876–2882Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diller, M., Haret, A., Linsbichler, T., Rümmele, S., Woltran, S.: An extension-based approach to belief revision in abstract argumentation. In: Yang and Wooldridge [21], pp. 2926–2932Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. The MIT Press, Bradford Books, Cambridge (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: postulates and properties. Artif. Intell. 175(9–10), 1479–1497 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hansson, S.O.: A Textbook of Belief Dynamics. Theory Change and Database Updating. Kluwer Academic, London (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levi, I.: Subjunctives, dispositions and chances. Synthese 34(4), 423–455 (1977)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moguillansky, M.O., Rotstein, N.D., Falappa, M.A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument theory change applied to defeasible logic programming. In: Fox, D., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) AAAI, pp. 132–137. AAAI Press (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moguillansky, M.O., Wassermann, R., Falappa, M.A.: Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change. Logic J. IGPL 20(1), 154–186 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rotstein, N.D., Moguillansky, M.O., Falappa, M.A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument theory change: revision upon warrant. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 336–347 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yang, Q., Wooldridge, M. (eds.): Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2015. AAAI Press, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25–31 July 2015Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CONICET, Institute for Research in Computer Science and Engineering (ICIC)Universidad Nacional Del Sur (UNS)Bahía BlancaArgentina
  2. 2.AI R&D Lab (LIDIA), Department of Computer Science and Engineering (DCIC)Universidad Nacional Del Sur (UNS)Bahía BlancaArgentina

Personalised recommendations