An extension-based approach to belief revision in abstract argumentation

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Adrian Haret ◽

Johannes P. Wallner ◽

Stefan Woltran

Keyword(s):

Belief Revision ◽

Propositional Logic ◽

Belief Change ◽

Knowledge Bases ◽

Abstract Argumentation ◽

Axiomatic Treatment ◽

Close Relationship ◽

Representation Result ◽

Two Sides ◽

Argumentation Systems

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.

Download Full-text

Knowing-it-all but still learning: Perceptions of one’s own knowledge and belief revision.

Developmental Psychology ◽

10.1037/dev0000433 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 53 (12) ◽

pp. 2319-2332 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sara Hagá ◽

Kristina R. Olson

Keyword(s):

Belief Revision ◽

Learning Perceptions

Download Full-text

Bipolar Abstract Argumentation with Dual Attacks and Supports

Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning ◽

10.24963/kr.2020/69 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Nico Potyka

Keyword(s):

Computational Complexity ◽

Decision Problems ◽

Abstract Argumentation ◽

Stable Semantics ◽

Support Relations ◽

Support Relationships ◽

Computational Properties ◽

Inherent Tendency

Bipolar abstract argumentation frameworks allow modeling decision problems by defining pro and contra arguments and their relationships. In some popular bipolar frameworks, there is an inherent tendency to favor either attack or support relationships. However, for some applications, it seems sensible to treat attack and support equally. Roughly speaking, turning an attack edge into a support edge, should just invert its meaning. We look at a recently introduced bipolar argumentation semantics and two novel alternatives and discuss their semantical and computational properties. Interestingly, the two novel semantics correspond to stable semantics if no support relations are present and maintain the computational complexity of stable semantics in general bipolar frameworks.

Download Full-text

Children change their answers in response to neutral follow-up questions by a knowledgeable asker

10.31234/osf.io/g3ftq ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Elizabeth Bonawitz ◽

Patrick Shafto ◽

Yue Yu ◽

Sophie Elizabeth Colby Bridgers ◽

Aaron Gonzalez

Keyword(s):

Social Learning ◽

Belief Revision ◽

Correct Answer ◽

New Information ◽

Common Practices ◽

Parent Child

Burgeoning evidence suggests that when children observe data, they use knowledge of the demonstrator’s intent to augment learning. We propose that the effects of social learning may go beyond cases where children observe data, to cases where they receive no new information at all. We present a model of how simply asking a question a second time may lead to belief revision, when the questioner is expected to know the correct answer. We provide an analysis of the CHILDES corpus to show that these neutral follow-up questions are used in parent-child conversations. We then present three experiments investigating 4- and 5-year-old children’s reactions to neutral follow-up questions posed by ignorant or knowledgeable questioners. Children were more likely to change their answers in response to a neutral follow-up question from a knowledgeable questioner than an ignorant one. We discuss the implications of these results in the context of common practices in legal, educational, and experimental psychological settings.

Download Full-text