Change in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks: Adding an Argument
This work addresses incremental changes in argumentation systems, relevant for AI applications in reasoning and decision-making.
The paper tackles the problem of how adding a new argument affects the set of extensions in abstract argumentation frameworks, defining properties like structural comparisons and status evolution, and studies these under grounded and preferred semantics.
In this paper, we address the problem of change in an abstract argumentation system. We focus on a particular change: the addition of a new argument which interacts with previous arguments. We study the impact of such an addition on the outcome of the argumentation system, more particularly on the set of its extensions. Several properties for this change operation are defined by comparing the new set of extensions to the initial one, these properties are called structural when the comparisons are based on set-cardinality or set-inclusion relations. Several other properties are proposed where comparisons are based on the status of some particular arguments: the accepted arguments; these properties refer to the evolution of this status during the change, e.g., Monotony and Priority to Recency. All these properties may be more or less desirable according to specific applications. They are studied under two particular semantics: the grounded and preferred semantics.