An extension-based approach to belief revision in abstract argumentation

Abstract

Argumentation is an inherently dynamic process, and recent years have witnessed tremendous research efforts towards an understanding of how the seminal AGM theory of belief change can be applied to argumentation, in particular to Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). However, none of the attempts have yet succeeded in solving the natural situation where the revision of an AF is guaranteed to be representable by a single AF. Here we present a solution to this problem, which applies to many prominent argumentation semantics. To prove a full representation theorem, we make use of recent advances in both areas of argumentation and belief change. In particular, we use the concept of realizability in argumentation and the concept of compliance as introduced in Horn revision. We also present a family of concrete belief change operators tailored specifically for AFs and analyze their computational complexity.

Argumentation is an inherently dynamic process, and recent years have witnessed tremendous research efforts towards an understanding of how the seminal AGM theory of belief change can be applied to argumentation, in particular to Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). However, none of the attempts have yet succeeded in solving the natural situation where the revision of an AF is guaranteed to be representable by a single AF. Here we present a solution to this problem, which applies to many prominent argumentation semantics. To prove a full representation theorem, we make use of recent advances in both areas of argumentation and belief change. In particular, we use the concept of realizability in argumentation and the concept of compliance as introduced in Horn revision. We also present a family of concrete belief change operators tailored specifically for AFs and analyze their computational complexity.