Assumption-based Argumentation: Disputes, Explanations, Preferences.

Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) is a form of structured argumentation with roots in non-monotonic reasoning. As in other forms of structured argumentation, notions of argument and attack are not primitive in ABA, but are instead defined in terms of other notions. In the case of ABA these other notions are those of rules in a deductive system, assumptions, and contraries. ABA is equipped with a range of computational tools, based on dispute trees and amounting to dispute derivations, and benefiting from equivalent views of the semantics of argumentation in ABA, in terms of sets of arguments and, equivalently, sets of assumptions. These computational tools can also provide the foundation for multi-agent argumentative dialogues and explanation of reasoning outputs, in various settings and senses. ABA is a flexible modelling formalism, despite its simplicity, allowing to support, in particular, various forms of non-monotonic reasoning, and reasoning with some forms of preferences and defeasible rules without requiring any additional machinery. ABA can also be naturally extended to accommodate further reasoning with preferences.

Authors

• Kristijonas Cyras
• Xiuyi Fan
• Claudia Schulz
• Francesca Toni

Keywords

No keywords are indexed for this paper.