Evaluating Novel Arguments in Case Models: Lessons from Belief Change and Abstract Argumentation for Case-based Reasoning

In the intersection between case-based reasoning and non-monotonic reasoning, case models serve as frameworks to evaluate arguments with respect to cases. The evaluation is based on their coherence, presumptive validity, and conclusiveness, in which all valid arguments must be at least coherent, meaning that those arguments must be grounded in at least one case. This paper, on the other hand, attempts to explore new evaluations for novel arguments, which are not required to ground in any case. To develop the new evaluation, we introduce revision operators in case models and associated properties based on AGM postulates. We then de!ne a conclusively adherent evaluation, in which novel arguments can be valid. After that, we relate their application to the understanding of abstract argumentation for case-based reasoning (AA-CBR).We demonstrate how the translation of AA-CBR case bases into case models can be described through revision sequences; and analyse the properties of conclusively adherent evaluation related to evaluation and attacks in AA-CBR.