From Structured to Abstract Argumentation: Assumption-Based Acceptance via AF Reasoning
نویسندگان
چکیده
We study the applicability of abstract argumentation (AF) reasoners in efficiently answering acceptability queries over assumption-based argumentation (ABA) frameworks, one of the prevalent forms of structured argumentation. We provide a refined algorithm for translating ABA frameworks to AFs allowing the use of AF reasoning to answer ABA acceptability queries, covering credulous and skeptical acceptance problems over ABAs in a seamless way under several argumentation semantics. We empirically show that the approach is complementary with a state-of-the-art ABA reasoning system.
منابع مشابه
Abstract Dialectical Frameworks for Legal Reasoning
Dialectical Frameworks for Legal Reasoning Latifa AL-ABDULKARIM, Katie ATKINSON, Trevor BENCH-CAPON Department of Computer Science, The University of Liverpool, UK Abstract. In recent years a powerful generalisation of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks, Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADF), has been developed. ADFs generalise the abstract argumentation frameworks introduced by Dung by r...
متن کاملModelling Time and Reliability in Structured Argumentation Frameworks
Argumentation is a human-like reasoning mechanism contributing to the formalization of commonsense reasoning. In the last decade, several argument-based formalisms have emerged, with application in many areas, such as legal reasoning, autonomous agents and multi-agent systems; many are based on Dung’s seminal work characterizing Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AF). Recent research in the are...
متن کاملComplexity-Sensitive Decision Procedures for Abstract Argumentation
Abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) provide the basis for various reasoning problems in the areas of Knowledge Representation and Artificial Intelligence. Efficient evaluation of AFs has thus been identified as an important research challenge. So far, implemented systems for evaluating AFs have either followed a straight-forward reduction-based approach or been limited to certain tractable ...
متن کاملReasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks
This paper combines two recent extensions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks in order to define an abstract formalism for reasoning about preferences in structured argumentation frameworks. First, extended argumentation frameworks extend Dung frameworks with attacks on attacks, thus providing an abstract dialectical semantics that accommodates argumentation-based reasoning about prefer...
متن کاملReasoning in Abstract Dialectical Frameworks Using Quantified Boolean Formulas1
Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) constitute a recent and powerful generalization of Dung’s argumentation frameworks (AFs), where the relationship between the arguments is specified via Boolean formulas. Recent results have shown that this enhancement comes with the price of higher complexity compared to AFs. In fact, acceptance problems in the world of ADFs can be hard even for the third ...
متن کامل