On the dynamics of structured argumentation: Modeling changes in default justification logic

Abstract

This paper studies information changes in default justification logic with argumentation semantics. We introduce dynamic operators that combine belief revision and default theory tools to define both prioritized and non-prioritized operations of contraction, expansion and revision for justification logic-based default theories. This combination enriches both default logics and belief revision techniques. We argue that the kind of attack called "undermining" amounts to those operations that contract a knowledge base by an attacked formula.