A study of argument acceptability dynamics through core and remainder sets

Abstract

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 logicbased 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.