College Publications logo   College Publications title  
View Basket
Homepage Contact page
   
 
AiML
Academia Brasileira de Filosofia
Algorithmics
Cadernos de Lógica e Computação
Cadernos de Lógica e Filosofia
Cahiers de Logique et d'Epistemologie
Communication, Mind and Language
Computing
Cuadernos de lógica, Epistemología y Lenguaje
DEON
Dialogues
Economics
Encyclopaedia of Logic
Filosofia
Handbooks
Historia Logicae
IfColog series in Computational Logic
IfColog Lecture series
IfColog Proceedings
Journal of Applied Logics - IfCoLog Journal
About
Editorial Board
Scope of the Journal
Submissions
Forthcoming papers
Journals
Landscapes
Logics for New-Generation AI
Logic and Law
Logic and Semiotics
Logic PhDs
Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science
The Logica Yearbook
Neural Computing and Artificial Intelligence
Philosophy
Research
The SILFS series
Studies in Logic
Studies in Talmudic Logic
Systems
Texts in Logic and Reasoning
Texts in Mathematics
Tributes
Other
Digital Downloads
Information for authors
About us
Search for Books
 



Forthcoming papers


Back

A comparative study of assumption-based argumentative approaches to reasoning with priorities

Jesse Heyninck and Christian Strasser

In this paper we study formal properties of approaches to the reasoning with prioritized defeasible assumptions. We focus on methods proposed in formal argumentation, more specifically in the context of assumption-based argumentation.

We systematically compare two approaches for handling conflicts: preference-based defeats and preference-based defeats extended with reverse defeat. We investigate under which conditions these approaches give rise to the same output. We study several meta-theoretical properties including argumentation theoretical properties (such as Dung’s Fundamental Lemma and the consistency of extensions) and properties for nonmonotonic reasoning (such as Cautious
Monotony and Cut) in a parametrized way, i.e., relative to specific constraints on the underlying deducability relation. Finally, we study the relationship between these approaches and preferred subtheories, a nonmonotonic reasoning formalism that is based on maximal consistent subsets of a totally ordered knowledge base.

In the parametrized setting we study different sub-classes of assumption based argumentation frameworks. For instance, we identify a particularly well behaved sub-class of argumentation-based frameworks for which the different conflict-handling mechanisms coincide, which give the same outcomes as preferred subtheories and for which core properties of nonmonotonic logic are valid.







© 2005–2022 College Publications / VFH webmaster