|
|
|
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.
|
|
|