On the evolving relation between belief revision and argumentation

Knowledge Engineering Review

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 35-43

  Falappa, Marcelo A ^a   García, Alejandro J ^a   Kern Isberner, Gabriele ^b   Simari, Guillermo R ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DEL SUR   (Argentina)

^b TU DORTMUND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AREA-BASED; BELIEF CHANGE; BELIEF REVISION; CONCEPTUAL VIEWS; FURTHER DEVELOPMENT; HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE;

MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS;

EID: 79953143272     PISSN: 02698889     EISSN: 14698005     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0269888910000391     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Alchourrón, C. & Makinson, D. 1981. Hierarchies of regulation and their logic. In Hilpinen, R. (ed.),New Studies in Deontic Logic, 125-148.
2. Alchourrón, C. & Makinson, D. 1985. On the logic of theory change: safe contraction. Studia Logica,D. Reidel Publishing Company 44, 405-422.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Boutilier, C. & Becher, V. 1993. Abduction as belief revision: a model of preferred explanations. In AAAI,Washington, DC, USA, 642-648.
8. 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.
9. De Kleer, J. 1986. An assumption-based TMS. Artificial Intelligence 28(2), 127-162.
10. Doyle, J. 1979. A truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence 12, 231-272.
11. Doyle, J. 1992. Reason maintenance and belief revision: foundations versus coherence theories. In Belief Revision, Gä rdenfors, P. (ed.). Cambridge University Press, 29-51.
12. 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.
13. Falappa, M. A., Kern-Isberner, G. & Simari, G. R. 2002. Belief revision, explanations and defeasible reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Journal 141, 1-28.
14. 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.
15. Garciacute;a, A. J. & Simari, G. R. 2004. Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1), 95-138.
16. Gärdenfors, P. 1982. Rule for rational changes of belief. In Philosophical Essay Dediccated To Lennart A° qvist on his Fiftieth Birthday, Pauli, T. (ed.), University of Uppsala, Sweden, 88-101.
17. Gärdenfors, P. 1988. Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. TheMIT Press,Bradford Books.
18. Gärdenfors, P. 1992. Belief Revision. Cambridge University Press, 1-28.
19. 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.
20. Grove, A. 1988. Two modellings for theory change. The Journal of Philosophical Logic 17, 157-170.
21. Hansson, S. O. 1994. Kernel contraction. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 59, 845-859.
22. Hansson, S. O. 1997. Theoria: Special Issue on Non-Prioritized Belief Revision. Department of Philosophy,Uppsala University.
23. Hansson, S. O. 1999. A Textbook of Belief Dymanics: Theory Change and Database Updating. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
24. Hansson, S. O., Fermeacute; , E., Cantwell, J. & Falappa, M. 2001. Credibility limited revision. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 66(4), 1581-1596. (Pubitemid 33579739)
25. Harper, W. 1975. Rational belief change, popper functions and counterfactuals. Synthese 30, 221-262.
26. 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.
27. Lewis, D. 1973. Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press.
28. Moguillansky, M. O., Rotstein, N. D., Falappa, M. A., Garciacute;a, 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.
29. Newell, A. 1982. The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence 18, 87-127.
30. .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.
31. Pollock, J. L. & Gillies, A. S. 2000. Belief revision and epistemology. Synthese 122(1-2), 69-92.
32. Rotstein, N. D., Moguillansky, M. O., Falappa, M. A., Garciacute;a, A. J. & Simari, G. R. 2008. Argument theorychange: revision upon warrant. In Proceedings of the Computational Models of Argument, COMMA'.2008.Toulouse, France, 336-347.
33. Rott, H. 1992. Preferential belief change using generalized epistemic entrenchment. The Journal of Logic,Language and Information 1, 45-78.
34. Williams, M.-A., Pagnucco, M., Foo, N. & Sims, B. 1995. Determining explanations using transmutations.In Proceedings of IJCAI-95. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 822-830.