Assumption-Based Approaches to Reasoning with Priorities
This work addresses the challenge of reasoning with priorities in formal argumentation, which is incremental as it builds on existing systems by comparing and translating between them.
The paper tackled the problem of handling preferences in argumentation systems by mapping relations and offering translations between non-prioritized defeats, preference-based defeats, and their extensions with reverse defeat, resulting in a comparative analysis of these approaches.
This paper maps out the relation between different approaches for handling preferences in argumentation with strict rules and defeasible assumptions by offering translations between them. The systems we compare are: non-prioritized defeats i.e. attacks, preference-based defeats, and preference-based defeats extended with reverse defeat.