Measuring minimal change in argument premise revision

Mark Snaith; Chris Reed

Measuring minimal change in argument premise revision

Mark Snaith
, Chris Reed

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution

Abstract

The field of belief revision studies how information can be given up in the face of new, conicting information, while argumentation provides methods through which conict can be modelled and the resultant acceptability of arguments evaluated. Prominent theories of beliefrevision depend on the notion of minimal change, measured in terms of epistemic entrenchment, to determine what beliefs to give up. In this paper, we take an initial look at the effects of removing an argument from a system of structured argumentation, in terms of both argument construction and acceptability, and how these can be used in the determination of minimal change.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Imperial College Computing Student Workshop - Proceedings of ICCSW'11
Editors	Andrew V. Jones
Place of Publication	London
Publisher	Imperial College, London
Pages	87-93
Number of pages	7
Publication status	Published - 2011
Event	1st Imperial College Computing Student Workshop, ICCSW 2011 - South Kensington Campus, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom Duration: 29 Sept 2011 → 30 Sept 2011 http://iccsw.doc.ic.ac.uk/2011/

Publication series

Name	Department of Computing technical report
Publisher	Imperial College, London
Volume	DTR11-9
ISSN (Print)	1469-4166
ISSN (Electronic)	1469-4174

Workshop

Workshop	1st Imperial College Computing Student Workshop, ICCSW 2011
Country/Territory	United Kingdom
City	London
Period	29/09/11 → 30/09/11
Internet address	http://iccsw.doc.ic.ac.uk/2011/

Access to Document

http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/research/technicalreports/2011/#9

Cite this

@inproceedings{ca2126d207cf42c68224babe9524a571,

title = "Measuring minimal change in argument premise revision",

abstract = "The field of belief revision studies how information can be given up in the face of new, conicting information, while argumentation provides methods through which conict can be modelled and the resultant acceptability of arguments evaluated. Prominent theories of beliefrevision depend on the notion of minimal change, measured in terms of epistemic entrenchment, to determine what beliefs to give up. In this paper, we take an initial look at the effects of removing an argument from a system of structured argumentation, in terms of both argument construction and acceptability, and how these can be used in the determination of minimal change.",

author = "Mark Snaith and Chris Reed",

year = "2011",

language = "English",

series = "Department of Computing technical report",

publisher = "Imperial College, London",

pages = "87--93",

editor = "Jones, \{Andrew V. \}",

booktitle = "Imperial College Computing Student Workshop - Proceedings of ICCSW'11",

url = "http://iccsw.doc.ic.ac.uk/2011/",

}

Snaith, M & Reed, C 2011, Measuring minimal change in argument premise revision. in AV Jones (ed.), Imperial College Computing Student Workshop - Proceedings of ICCSW'11. Department of Computing technical report, vol. DTR11-9, Imperial College, London, London, pp. 87-93, 1st Imperial College Computing Student Workshop, ICCSW 2011, London, United Kingdom, 29/09/11. <http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/research/technicalreports/2011/#9>

Measuring minimal change in argument premise revision. / Snaith, Mark; Reed, Chris.
Imperial College Computing Student Workshop - Proceedings of ICCSW'11. ed. / Andrew V. Jones. London: Imperial College, London, 2011. p. 87-93 (Department of Computing technical report; Vol. DTR11-9).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution

TY - GEN

T1 - Measuring minimal change in argument premise revision

AU - Snaith, Mark

AU - Reed, Chris

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - The field of belief revision studies how information can be given up in the face of new, conicting information, while argumentation provides methods through which conict can be modelled and the resultant acceptability of arguments evaluated. Prominent theories of beliefrevision depend on the notion of minimal change, measured in terms of epistemic entrenchment, to determine what beliefs to give up. In this paper, we take an initial look at the effects of removing an argument from a system of structured argumentation, in terms of both argument construction and acceptability, and how these can be used in the determination of minimal change.

AB - The field of belief revision studies how information can be given up in the face of new, conicting information, while argumentation provides methods through which conict can be modelled and the resultant acceptability of arguments evaluated. Prominent theories of beliefrevision depend on the notion of minimal change, measured in terms of epistemic entrenchment, to determine what beliefs to give up. In this paper, we take an initial look at the effects of removing an argument from a system of structured argumentation, in terms of both argument construction and acceptability, and how these can be used in the determination of minimal change.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84869068948

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:84869068948

T3 - Department of Computing technical report

SP - 87

EP - 93

BT - Imperial College Computing Student Workshop - Proceedings of ICCSW'11

A2 - Jones, Andrew V.

PB - Imperial College, London

CY - London

T2 - 1st Imperial College Computing Student Workshop, ICCSW 2011

Y2 - 29 September 2011 through 30 September 2011

ER -

Measuring minimal change in argument premise revision

Abstract

Publication series

Workshop

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint