ABAplus: Attack Reversal in Abstract and Structured Argumentation with Preferences

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10621)

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34(1–3), 197–215 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55(2), 585–606 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93(97), 63–101 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: DeLP-servers, contextual queries, and explanations for answers. Argum. Comput. 5(1), 63–88 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 875–896 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 195, 361–397 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum. Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Toni, F.: A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation. Argum. Comput. 5(1), 89–117 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations