2023/05/21 by Markus Ulbricht, Ulbricht, Markus, Nico Potyka +3 · 2 citations
Business, Management and Accounting · Computer Science · #Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) #Business Process Modeling and Analysis #FOS: Computer and information sciences #Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation #Service-Oriented Architecture and Web Services
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.12453
openalex publication_date 2023/05/21 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/03
Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) is a well-known structured argumentation formalism, whereby arguments and attacks between them are drawn from rules, defeasible assumptions and their contraries. A common restriction imposed on ABA frameworks (ABAFs) is that they are flat, i.e., each of the defeasible assumptions can only be assumed, but not derived. While it is known that flat ABAFs can be translated into abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) as proposed by Dung, no translation exists from general, possibly non-flat ABAFs into any kind of abstract argumentation formalism. In this paper, we close this gap and show that bipolar AFs (BAFs) can instantiate general ABAFs. To this end we develop suitable, novel BAF semantics which borrow from the notion of deductive support. We investigate basic properties of our BAFs, including computational complexity, and prove the desired relation to ABAFs under several semantics. Finally, in order to support computation and explainability, we propose the notion of dispute trees for our BAF semantics.