09351 Abstracts Collection -- Information processing, rational belief change and social interaction

From 23.08. to 27.08.2009, the Dagstuhl Seminar 09351 ``Information processing, rational belief change and social interaction \u27\u27 was held in Schloss Dagstuhl~--~Leibniz Center for Informatics. During the seminar, several participants presented their current research, and ongoing work and open problems were discussed. Abstracts of the presentations given during the seminar as well as abstracts of seminar results and ideas are put together in this paper. The first section describes the seminar topics and goals in general. Links to extended abstracts or full papers are provided, if available

Arguments as Belief Structures: Towards a Toulmin Layout of Doxastic Dynamics?

Argumentation is a dialogical attempt to bring about a desired change in the beliefs of another agent – that is, to trigger a specific belief revision process in the mind of such agent. However, so far formal models of belief revision widely neglected any systematic comparison with argumentation theories, to the point that even the simplest argumentation structures cannot be captured within such models. In this essay, we endeavour to bring together argumentation and belief revision in the same formal framework, and to highlight the important role played by Toulmin’s layout of argument in fostering such integration

Belief revision and computational argumentation: a critical comparison

This paper aims at comparing and relating belief revision and argumentation as approaches to model reasoning processes. Referring to some prominent literature references in both fields, we will discuss their (implicit or explicit) assumptions on the modeled processes and hence commonalities and differences in the forms of reason ing they are suitable to deal with. The intended contribution is on one hand assessing the (not fully explored yet) relationships between two lively research fields in the broad area of defeasible reasoning and on the other hand pointing out open issues and potential directions for future research.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

On the construction of Dialectical Databases

Argumentation systems have substantially evolved in the past few years, resulting in adequate tools to model some forms of common sense reasoning. This has sprung a new set of argument-based applications in diverse areas. In previous work, we defined how to use precompiled knowledge to obtain significant speed-ups in the inference process of an argument-based system. This development is based on a logic programming system with an argumentationdriven inference engine, called Observation Based Defeasible Logic Programming (ODeLP). In this setting was first presented the concept of dialectical databases, that is, data structures for storing precompiled knowledge. These structures provide precompiled information about inferences and can be used to speed up the inference process, as TMS do in general problem solvers. In this work, we present detailed algorithms for the creation of dialectical databases in ODeLP and analyze these algorithms in terms of their computational complexity

Argumentation and data-oriented belief revision: On the two-sided nature of epistemic change

This paper aims to bring together two separate threads in the formal study of epistemic change: belief revision and argumentation theories. Belief revision describes the way in which an agent is supposed to change his own mind, while argumentation deals with persuasive strategies employed to change the mind of other agents. Belief change and argumentation are two sides (cognitive and social) of the same epistemic coin. Argumentation theories are therefore incomplete, if they cannot be grounded in belief revision models - and vice versa. Nonetheless, so far the formal treatment of belief revision widely neglected any systematic comparison with argumentation theories. Such lack of integration poses severe limitations to our understanding of epistemic change, and more comprehensive models should instead be devised. After a short critical review of the literature (cf. 1), we outline an alternative model of belief revision whose main claim is the distinction between data and beliefs (cf. 2), and we discuss in detail its expressivity with respect to argumentation (cf. 3): finally, we summarize our conclusions and future works on the interface between belief revision and argumentation (cf. 4)