Relations between assumption-based approaches in nonmonotonic logic and formal argumentation
This work contributes to theoretical foundations in AI and logic, but it is incremental as it builds on existing approaches to connect different formalisms.
The paper tackles the problem of unifying formal models of defeasible reasoning by presenting translations between formal argumentation frameworks and nonmonotonic logics, specifically linking adaptive logics, assumption-based argumentation, and ASPIC+.
In this paper we make a contribution to the unification of formal models of defeasible reasoning. We present several translations between formal argumentation frameworks and nonmonotonic logics for reasoning with plausible assumptions. More specifically, we translate adaptive logics into assumption-based argumentation and ASPIC+, ASPIC+ into assumption-based argumentation and a fragment of assumption-based argumentation into adaptive logics. Adaptive logics are closely related to Makinson's default assumptions and to a significant class of systems within the tradition of preferential semantics in the vein of KLM and Shoham. Thus, our results also provide close links between formal argumentation and the latter approaches.