Abstract
We present ABAplus, a system that implements reasoning with the argumentation formalism ABA\(^+\). ABA\(^+\) is a structured argumentation formalism that extends Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) with preferences and accounts for preferences via attack reversal. ABA\(^+\) also admits as instance Preference-based Argumentation which accounts for preferences by reversing attacks in abstract argumentation (AA). ABAplus readily implements attack reversal in both AA and ABA-style structured argumentation. ABAplus affords computation, visualisation and comparison of extensions under five argumentation semantics. It is available both as a stand-alone system and as a web application.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
As a preorder, \(\leqslant \) has to be reflexive, but for brevity purposes we often omit to specify the reflexive instances of any preorder.
- 2.
Other ways of formalising such examples in ABA are possible; we chose a natural and simple representation. Generally, knowledge representation in argumentation (and other formalisms) may be a complex problem, discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper.
- 3.
Our notion of ‘weak contraposition’ bears no relationship with the notion by the same name used e.g. in [15], inspired by conditional entailment in Deontic Logic.
- 4.
Unless specified otherwise, we omit \(\mathcal {L}\) and
, and adopt the following conventions: unless \(\overline{\mathsf {x}}\) appears in either \(\mathcal {A}\) or \(\mathcal {R}\), it is different from the sentences appearing in \(\mathcal {A}\) or \(\mathcal {R}\); thus, \(\mathcal {L}\) consists of all the sentences appearing in \(\mathcal {R}\), \(\mathcal {A}\) and \(\{ \overline{\mathsf {a}}~:~\mathsf {a}\in \mathcal {A}\}\). - 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
, and adopt the following conventions: unless References
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34(1–3), 197–215 (2002)
Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55(2), 585–606 (2014)
Besnard, P., García, A.J., Hunter, A., Modgil, S., Prakken, H., Simari, G.R., Toni, F.: Introduction to structured argumentation. Argum. Comput. 5(1), 1–4 (2014)
Bistarelli, S., Rossi, F., Santini, F.: ConArg: a tool for classical and weighted argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Gordon, T., Scheffler, T., Stede, M. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 287, pp. 463–464. IOS Press, Potsdam (2016)
Bistarelli, S., Santini, F.: A Common computational framework for semiring-based argumentation system. In: Coelho, H., Studer, R., Wooldridge, M. (eds.) 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 215, pp. 131–136. IOS Press, Lisbon (2010)
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93(97), 63–101 (1997)
Čyras, K., Toni, F.: ABA+: assumption-based argumentation with preferences. In: Baral, C., Delgrande, J.P., Wolter, F. (eds.) 15th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 553–556. AAAI Press, Cape Town (2016)
Dimopoulos, Y., Kakas, A.C.: Logic programming without negation as failure. In: Lloyd, J.W. (ed.) International Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 369–383. MIT Press, Portland (1995)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)
Gaggl, S.A., Manthey, N., Ronca, A., Wallner, J.P., Woltran, S.: Improved answer-set programming encodings for abstract argumentation. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 15(4–5), 434–448 (2015)
García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: DeLP-servers, contextual queries, and explanations for answers. Argum. Comput. 5(1), 63–88 (2014)
Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 875–896 (2007)
Gordon, T.F., Walton, D.: Formalizing balancing arguments. In: Baroni, P., Gordon, T.F., Scheffler, T., Stede, M. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 287, pp. 327–338. IOS Press, Potsdam (2016)
Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems, pp. 883–890. ACM Press, Melbourne (2003)
Liao, B., Oren, N., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Prioritized norms and defaults in formal argumentation. In: Roy, O., Tamminga, A., Wille, M. (eds.) 13th International Conference on Deontic Logic and Normative Systems, pp. 139–154. College Publications, Bayreuth (2016)
Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 195, 361–397 (2013)
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum. Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)
Snaith, M., Reed, C.: TOAST: online ASPIC+ implementation. In: Verheij, B., Szeider, S., Woltran, S. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 245, pp. 509–510. IOS Press, Vienna (2012)
Toni, F.: Reasoning on the web with assumption-based argumentation. In: Eiter, T., Krennwallner, T. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2012. LNCS, vol. 7487, pp. 370–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33158-9_10
Toni, F.: A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation. Argum. Comput. 5(1), 89–117 (2014)
Wakaki, T.: Assumption-based argumentation equipped with preferences. In: Dam, H.K., Pitt, J., Xu, Y., Governatori, G., Ito, T. (eds.) PRIMA 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8861, pp. 116–132. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13191-7_10
Acknowledgements
This research was partially funded by the EPSRC project EP/P029558/1 ROAD2H: Resource Optimisation, Argumentation, Decision Support and Knowledge Transfer to Create Value via Learning Health Systems. We also thank Jeff Thompson for helpful discussions on the use of ABAplus to schedule meetings (Example 5).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bao, Z., Čyras, K., Toni, F. (2017). ABAplus: Attack Reversal in Abstract and Structured Argumentation with Preferences. In: An, B., Bazzan, A., Leite, J., Villata, S., van der Torre, L. (eds) PRIMA 2017: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10621. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_25
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69130-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69131-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)