{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014164305949008499, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.256637168141593, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Measuring minimal change in argument premise revision

The field of belief revision studies how information can be given up in the face of new, conflicting information, while argumentation provides methods through which conflict can be modelled and the resultant acceptability of arguments evaluated. Prominent theories of belief revision 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.