Properties of ABA+ for Non-Monotonic Reasoning∗
Kristijonas Čyras and Francesca Toni

arXiv:1603.08714v3 [cs.AI] 5 Nov 2017

Imperial College London, UK

Abstract

properties for argumentation with preferences indicated (e.g. (Brewka, Truszczyński, and Woltran 2010;
We investigate properties of ABA+ , a formalism that exModgil and Prakken 2013;
Amgoud and Vesic 2014;
tends the well studied structured argumentation formalism
Dung 2016)).
Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) with a preference
NMR properties are also adaptable to argumenhandling mechanism. In particular, we establish desirable
tation
setting. For example, the well known non+
properties that ABA semantics exhibit. These pave way
monotonic inference properties of Cautious Monotonicto the satisfaction by ABA+ of some (arguably) desirable
ity and Cumulative Transitivity (cf. (Makinson 1988;
principles of preference handling in argumentation and nonKraus, Lehmann, and Magidor 1990)) concern what hapmonotonic reasoning, as well as non-monotonic inference
pens when a conclusion reached through a reasoning process
properties of ABA+ under various semantics.
is added to the knowledge base to reason with anew. These
properties have been cast with respect to extensions in argu1 Introduction
mentation, in e.g. (Čyras and Toni 2015; Dung 2016).
Preference handling properties for NMR can be phrased
Recent decades have seen a number of nonin
terms of extensions in argumentation too. For instance,
monotonic reasoning (NMR) formalisms advanced (see
the well known Principle I from (Brewka and Eiter 1999)
e.g. (Brewka, Niemelä, and Truszczyński 2008a) for an
regarding preferred answer sets can be applied to arguoverview). Since preferences are ubiquitous in commonmentation semantics thus: if two extensions E1 and E2
sense reasoning, there has been a considerable effort to
coincide except for two arguments A ∈ E1 \ E2 and
integrate preference information within NMR formalisms
B ∈ E2 \ E1 such that A is preferred over B, then E2
(cf.
e.g.
(Brewka, Niemelä, and Truszczyński 2008b;
should
not be chosen as a ‘preferable’ extension. LikeDelgrande et al. 2004;
Domshlak et al. 2011;
wise,
a
common property of NMR says that, in the abKaci 2011)). To evaluate distinct formalisms, varsence of preference information, a formalism extended
ious properties of both non-monotonic inference
with a preference handling mechanism should return the
and preference handling have been proposed, see
same extensions as the preference-free version of the fore.g. (Makinson 1988; Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor 1990;
Brewka and Eiter 1999; Brewka, Truszczyński, and Woltran 2010; malism (see e.g. (Brewka, Truszczyński, and Woltran 2010;
Šimko 2014)).
Šimko 2014).
In this paper, drawing from the above mentioned
Meanwhile, argumentation (as overviewed in
works, we investigate various properties of a recently
(Rahwan and Simari 2009)) has become an established
proposed NMR formalism ABA+ (Čyras and Toni 2016a).
branch of AI widely used for NMR (see e.g. (Dung 1995;
ABA+ extends with a preference handling mechanism a
Bondarenko et al. 1997;
Modgil and Prakken 2013)).
well established argumentation formalism, AssumptionBroadly speaking, information in argumentation is repreBased Argumentation (ABA) (Bondarenko et al. 1997;
sented via arguments, while attacks among them indicate
Toni 2014). Whereas a common way to approach
conflicts. Procedures, known as argumentation semantics,
preferences in argumentation is to use preference
are employed to select extensions, i.e. sets of collectively
information to discard the attacks from arguments
acceptable arguments. Preferences in argumentation also
that are less preferred than the ones they attack (see
play a significant role (cf. e.g. (Simari and Loui 1992;
e.g.
(Amgoud and Cayrol 2002;
Bench-Capon 2003;
Kaci 2011)), by allowing to, for instance, discrimiKaci
and
van
der
Torre
2008;
Brewka et al. 2013;
nate among arguments or extensions. Over the years,
+
Besnard
et
al.
2014)),
ABA
instead
reverses such atnumerous formalisms of argumentation with prefertacks. We show that ABA+ ’s method of accounting for
ences have been presented (see Section 7) and some
preferences satisfies (arguably) desirable properties.
∗
On the one hand, we consider preference hanThis is a revised version of the paper presented at the workshop.
dling
properties
from
(Brewka and Eiter 1999;

Brewka, Truszczyński, and Woltran 2010;
Amgoud and Vesic 2014) and show their satisfaction
under various ABA+ semantics. On the other hand, building on the investigations of Cumulative Transitivity and
Cautious Monotonicity for ABA (Čyras and Toni 2015),
we analyse ABA+ in the light of these non-monotonic
inference properties. In addition, we make use of the
well known principle of Contraposition of rules (see
e.g. (Modgil and Prakken 2013)) and prove it guarantees
that ABA+ semantics satisfy desirable properties akin
to those in e.g. (Dung 1995; Bondarenko et al. 1997;
Modgil and Prakken 2013).
The paper is organized as follows. Sections 2 and 3 give
preliminaries on ABA and ABA+ . In Section 4 ABA+ semantics are analysed. Preference handling properties of
ABA+ are studied in Section 5, while Section 6 concerns
ABA+ and non-monotonic inference properties. After discussing related work (Section 7), we conclude in Section 8.

2

Preliminaries

We base the following ABA background on (Toni 2014).
Definition 1. An ABA framework is a tuple (L, R, A,¯¯¯),
where:
• (L, R) is a deductive system with a language L and a set
R of rules of the form ϕ0 ← ϕ1 , . . . , ϕm with m > 0
and ϕi ∈ L for i ∈ {0, . . . , m}; ϕ0 is referred to as the
head of the rule, and ϕ1 , . . . , ϕm is referred to as the body
of the rule; if m = 0, then the rule ϕ0 ← ϕ1 , . . . , ϕm is
written as ϕ0 ← ⊤ and is said to have an empty body;
• A ⊆ L is a non-empty set, whose elements are referred to
as assumptions;
• ¯¯¯ : A → L is a total map: for α ∈ A, the L-formula α is
referred to as the contrary of α.
We focus on flat ABA frameworks, where no assumption
is the head of any rule. Flat ABA frameworks are very common, and capture, as instances, widely used paradigms of
non-monotonic reasoning, such as Logic Programming and
Default Logic (see e.g. (Bondarenko et al. 1997)).
Definition 2. A deduction for ϕ ∈ L supported by S ⊆ L
and R ⊆ R, denoted by S ⊢R ϕ, is a finite tree with the root
labelled by ϕ, leaves labelled by ⊤ or elements from S, the
children of non-leaf nodes ψ labelled by the elements of the
body of some rule from R with head ψ, and R being the set
of all such rules. For E ⊆ L, the conclusions Cn(E) of E
is the set of elements with deductions supported by S ⊆ E
and some R ⊆ R, i.e. Cn(E) = {ϕ ∈ L : ∃ S ⊢R ϕ, S ⊆
E, R ⊆ R}.
Assumption-level attacks in ABA are defined thus.
Definition 3. A set A ⊆ A attacks a set B ⊆ A, denoted
A
B, if there is a deduction A′ ⊢R β, for some β ∈ B,
supported by some A′ ⊆ A and R ⊆ R. For E ⊆ A, also
called an extension, we say that:
• E is conflict-free if E 6 E;
• E defends α ∈ A if for all B
{α} it holds that E
B;
• E is admissible if E is conflict-free and defends all α ∈
E.
The most standard ABA semantics are as follows.

Definition 4. A conflict-free set E ⊆ A is:
• stable, if E
{β} for every {β} ⊆ A \ E;
• complete if E is admissible and contains every assumption it defends;
• preferred if E is ⊆-maximally admissible;
• grounded if E is ⊆-minimally complete;
• ideal if E is ⊆-maximal such that E is admissible and
contained in all preferred extensions.
Example 5. Let L = {α, β, α, β}, R = {α ← β} and
A = {α, β}. In (L, R, A,¯¯¯), {β} attacks both {α} and
{α, β}, while {α, β} attacks itself and {α}. (L, R, A,¯¯¯) can
be graphically represented via its assumption framework,
pictured below (in illustrations of assumption frameworks,
nodes hold sets of assumptions while directed edges indicate attacks):
{α}

∅

{β}

{α, β}

This (L, R, A,¯¯¯) has a unique complete extension {β},
which is also grounded, ideal, preferred and stable, and has
conclusions Cn({β}) = {α, β}.

3
+

ABA+

ABA (Čyras and Toni 2016a) extends ABA with preferences as follows.
Definition 6. An ABA+ framework is any tuple
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6), where (L, R, A,¯¯¯) is an ABA framework and 6 is a preorder (i.e. a transitive and reflexive
binary relation) on A.
Differently from e.g. (Modgil and Prakken 2013;
Modgil and Prakken 2014;
Garcı́a and Simari 2014),
ABA+ considers preferences on assumptions rather than
(defeasible) rules. This is not, however, a conceptual difference, since assumptions are the only defeasible component
in ABA+ .
Unless stated differently, we consider a fixed, but otherwise arbitrary ABA+ framework (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6), and
implicitly assume (L, R, A,¯¯¯) to be its underlying ABA
framework. The strict counterpart < of 6 is defined as
α < β iff α 6 β and β α, for any α and β.
ABA+ attack relation is given thus.
Definition 7. A set A ⊆ A of assumptions <-attacks a set
B ⊆ A of assumptions, written as A < B, if:
• either there is a deduction A′ ⊢R β, for some β ∈ B,
supported by A′ ⊆ A, and ∄α′ ∈ A′ with α′ < β;
• or there is a deduction B ′ ⊢R α, for some α ∈ A, supported by B ′ ⊆ B, and ∃β ′ ∈ B ′ with β ′ < α.
The first type of attack is called normal, and the second one
reverse.
ABA+ requires a standard ABA attack to be reversed
whenever the attacker has an assumption less preferred than
the one attacked. The following example illustrates.
Example 8. Recall (L, R, A,¯¯¯) from Example 5. Suppose
β < α. In the ABA+ framework (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6), {β} ‘tries’
to attack {α}, but is prevented by the preference β < α. Instead, {α} <-attacks {β}, and likewise {α, β}, via reverse

attack, and the latter <-attacks both itself and {β} via reverse attack. (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) can be represented graphically
as follows (reverse attacks in assumption frameworks will
be denoted by dotted arrows):
∅

{α}

{β}

{α, β}

In contrast with the ABA framework, where {β} is
unattacked and generates an attack on {α}, in the
ABA+ framework, {α} is <-unattacked and <-attacks all
sets of assumptions that contain β. This concords with the
intended meaning of the preference β < α, that the conflict
should be resolved in favour of α.
This concept of <-attack reflects the interplay between
deductions, contraries and preferences, by representing inherent conflicts among sets of assumptions while accounting for preference information. Normal attacks follow the
standard notion of attack in ABA, additionally, preventing
the attack to succeed when the attacker uses assumptions
less preferred than the one attacked. Reverse attacks, meanwhile, resolve the conflict between two sets of assumptions
by favouring the one containing an assumption whose contrary is deduced, over the one which uses less preferred assumptions to deduce that contrary.
The notions of conflict-freeness and defence w.r.t. < ,
and ABA+ semantics are given as follows.
Definition 9. For E ⊆ A we say that:
• E is <-conflict-free if E 6 < E;
• E <-defends α ∈ A if for all B < {α} it holds that
E < B;
• E <-defends A ⊆ A if for all B
< A it holds that
E < B; and
• E is <-admissible if E is <-conflict-free and <-defends
E.
In Example 8, ∅, {α} and {β} are conflict-free in
(L, R, A,¯¯¯) and <-conflict-free in (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6), whereas
{α, β} is not (<-)conflict-free in either framework.
Definition 10. A <-conflict-free extension E ⊆ A is:
• <-stable if E < {α} for every {α} ⊆ A \ E;
• <-complete if E is <-admissible and contains every assumption it <-defends;
• <-preferred if E is ⊆-maximally <-admissible;
• <-grounded if E is ⊆-minimally <-complete;
• <-ideal if E is ⊆-maximal such that E is <-admissible
and contained in all <-preferred extensions.
In Example 8, {α} is a unique <-stable, <-complete, <preferred, <-grounded and <-ideal extension.
Henceforth, we assume σ ∈ {stable, complete, preferred,
grounded, ideal} and use <-σ to denote any ABA+ semantics.
We recall several features that ABA+ possesses and that
will be used later.
Lemma 1. Let A′ ⊆ A ⊆ A and B ′ ⊆ B ⊆ A be given. If
A′ < B ′ , then A < B.
Lemma 2. For any A, B ⊆ A:
• if A
B, then either A < B or B < A;
• if A < B, then either A
B or B
A.

4

Properties of ABA+ Semantics

To ensure that the familiar relations between semantics
carry from ABA over to ABA+ , we want to guarantee the so-called Fundamental Lemma (Dung 1995;
Bondarenko et al. 1997) (see below). To this end, we
follow the well established structured argumentation formalism ASPIC+ (Modgil and Prakken 2013;
Modgil and Prakken 2014) and impose the principle of
Contraposition, reformulated for ABA+ as follows.
Axiom 11. (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) satisfies the Axiom of Contraposition if for all A ⊆ A, R ⊆ R and β ∈ A it holds that
if A ⊢R β, then for every α ∈ A, there is Rα ⊆ R with
(A \ {α}) ∪ {β} ⊢Rα α.
This axiom requires that if an assumption plays a role in
deriving the contrary of another assumption, then it should
contrapositively be possible for the latter to induce a derivation of the contrary of the former assumption too. The following example illustrates the effect Contraposition has in
ABA+ .
Example 12. Let R = {β ← α, γ}, A = {α, β, γ} and
α < β, α < γ. (The language and the contrary mapping are implicit from R and A.) This ABA+ framework
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) does not satisfy the Axiom of Contraposition. Its assumption framework (omitting ∅, A and <-attacks
to and from A) is shown below:
{γ}

{β, γ}

{β}

{α, γ}
{α}

{α, β}

There are no extensions under, for instance, <-complete semantics, because all the singletons {α}, {β} and {γ} are
<-unattacked, but {α, β, γ} is not <-conflict-free.
If the rules α ← β, γ and γ ← α, β are added to R
to constitute R′ , then the resulting (L, R′ , A,¯¯¯, 6) satisfies
the Axiom of Contraposition and its assumption framework
looks as follows (<-attacks that are both normal and reverse
are depicted as solid directed edges):
{γ}

{β, γ}

{β}

{α, γ}
{α}

{α, β}

Here, {β, γ} is a unique <-complete extension.
We prove next that in the presence of Contraposition, the
Fundamental Lemma is guaranteed to hold in ABA+ .
Lemma 3. Suppose that (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) satisfies the Axiom
of Contraposition. Let S ⊆ A be <-admissible and assume
that S <-defends α, α′ ∈ A. Then S ∪ {α} is <-admissible
and <-defends α′ .
Proof. Note that if α ∈ S, then S ∪ {α} is trivially <admissible. So assume α 6∈ S and suppose for a contradiction that S ∪ {α} is not <-admissible. Then it is either not

<-conflict-free, or does not <-defend itself. Suppose first
S ∪ {α} < S ∪ {α} via either (1) normal or (2) reverse
attack. We show that either leads to a contradiction.
1. S ∪ {α} < S ∪ {α} via normal attack. As S is <conflict-free and <-defends α, this <-attack must involve α.
I.e. S ′ ∪ {α} ⊢R β for some S ′ ⊆ S and β ∈ S ∪ {α},
and ∀s′ ∈ S ′ ∪ {α} we find s′ 6< β. If β = α, then S ′ ∪
{α} < {α}, and so S < S ′ ∪ {α}. Else, if β ∈ S ′ , then
S ′ ∪ {α} < S, and so S < S ′ ∪ {α} as well. We show
that we can similarly obtain S < S ′ ∪ {α} in case (2) too.
2. S∪{α} < S∪{α} via reverse attack. As in 1., this <attack must involve α, i.e. S ′ ∪ {α} ⊢R β for some S ′ ⊆ S
and β ∈ S ∪ {α}, and ∃s′ ∈ S ′ ∪ {α} such that s′ < β. If
β ∈ S, then S < S ′ ∪{α}. Else, if β = α, then s′ 6= α (by
asymmetry of <), and using the Axiom of Contraposition we
′
find A ⊢R s′ for A ⊆ (S ′ ∪ {α}) \ {s′ }, so that S ′ ∪ {α}
S. Then, by Lemma 2, either S ′ ∪ {α} < S or S
<
S ′ ∪ {α}, which yields S < S ′ ∪ {α} in any case.
′
In either (1) or (2), S
< S ∪ {α}, and as S is <conflict-free and <-defends α, this <-attack must be reverse
and involve α: A1 ∪ {α} ⊢R1 s1 , s1 ∈ S, A1 ⊆ S ′ , and
∃s′1 ∈ A1 with s′1 < s1 . Without loss of generality take
s′1 to be 6-minimal such. By the Axiom of Contraposition,
′
there is S1 ∪ {α} ⊢R1 s′1 with S1 ⊆ (A1 \ {s′1 }) ∪ {s1 }
and ∀x ∈ S1 x 6< s′1 (by 6-minimality of s′1 ). That is,
S1 ∪ {α} < A1 , so we find S < S1 ∪ {α}, again via
reverse attack involving α: A2 ∪ {α} ⊢R2 s2 , s2 ∈ S,
A2 ⊆ S1 , and ∃s′2 ∈ A2 with s′2 < s2 . We again impose 6-minimality on s′2 and by the Axiom of Contrapo′
sition get S2 ∪ {α} ⊢R2 s′2 , S2 ⊆ (A2 \ {s′2 }) ∪ {s2 } and
∀x ∈ S2 x 6< s′2 .
As deductions are finite and < asymmetric, the procedure
described above will eventually exhaust pairs of s′k ∈ Ak
and sk ∈ Sk such that s′k < sk , so that S < Sk ∪ {α} will
have to be a normal attack, for some k. But this leads to a
contradiction to S being <-admissible and <-defending α.
Hence, by contradiction, S ∪ {α} is <-conflict-free.
We now want to show that S ∪ {α} <-defends itself. So
let B < S ∪ {α}. As S is <-admissible and <-defends
α, we consider this <-attack to be reverse and involving α:
S ′ ∪ {α} ⊢R β1 , S ′ ⊆ S, β1 ∈ B, and ∃s′ ∈ S ′ ∪ {α}
′
with s′ < β1 . By the Axiom of Contraposition, S1 ⊢R1
s′ , S1 ⊆ ((S ′ ∪ {α}) \ {s′ }) ∪ {β1 }. Thus, S1
{s′ },
whence S ∪ {α} < S1 . This <-attack cannot be normal
on (S ′ ∪ {α}) \ {s′ }, due to <-conflict-freeness of S ∪ {α};
while, if it is normal on β1 , then S ∪{α} < B, as required.
Else, S ∪ {α} < S1 via reverse attack: B1 ⊢R1 s1 , s1 ∈
S ∪ {α}, B1 ⊆ S1 , and ∃s′1 ∈ B1 with s′1 < s1 . Due
to <-conflict-freeness of S ∪ {α}, we find β1 ∈ B1 . Then
′
again, by the Axiom of Contraposition, we find S2 ⊢R2 s′1 ,
′
S2 ⊆ (B1 \ {s1 }) ∪ {s1 }, and β1 ∈ S2 . Like with the proof
of <-conflict-freeness, this process must terminate with a
normal attack S ∪ {α} < B, so that S ∪ {α} eventually
<-defends itself.
Finally, given that S <-defends α′ to begin with, using
Lemma 1 we conclude that S ∪ {α} <-defends α′ too.
For the rest of this section, we assume that (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6)

satisfies the Axiom of Contraposition.
We can now define the <-defence operator Def, inspired
by (Dung 1995).
Definition 13. Def : ℘(A) → ℘(A) is defined as follows:
for A ⊆ A, Def(A) = {α ∈ A : A <-defends α}.
By Lemma 1, Def is monotonic: if A ⊆ B ⊆ A, then
Def(A) ⊆ Def(B). Hence, Def has a unique least fixed
point, which is in addition a unique <-grounded extension
of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6), as shown next.
Proposition 4. (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) admits a unique <grounded extension.
Proof. First, observe that ∅ is <-admissible in
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6). The least fixed point G can be given
S
as i∈N Def i (∅). By Lemma 3, G is <-admissible. It
is clearly <-complete (as G = Def(G)) and unique ⊆minimal such (as the least fixed point). Hence, G is a unique
<-grounded extension of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6).
As a consequence of Proposition 4, we get the following.
Corollary 5. (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) admits a <-complete extension.
Using Lemma 3, we can prove the following results.
Proposition 6. (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) admits a <-preferred extension.
Proof. By Lemma 3, the collection of <-admissible supersets of ∅ is partially ordered by subset inclusion ⊆, so any
sequence ∅ ⊆ A1 ⊆ . . . ⊆ An ⊆ . . . of <-admissible
sets ofSassumptions (for n an ordinal) has an upper bound
A = i>0 Ai . Then A ⊆ A is <-admissible: if it were
not <-conflict-free, then some An would not be either; and
for any B < A we have B < An , for some n, so that
An
< B, and hence A
< B too. Since every chain
∅ ⊆ A1 ⊆ . . . ⊆ An ⊆ . . . admits an <-admissible upper
bound, every such chain has a ⊆-maximally <-admissible
set of assumptions, according to Zorn’s Lemma. As ∅ is <admissible, (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) admits at least one ⊆-maximally
<-admissible—i.e. a <-preferred—extension.
Proposition 7. Every <-preferred extension
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) is a <-complete extension too.

of

Proof. Let E be a <-preferred extension of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6)
and suppose for a contradiction that it is not <-complete.
Let E <-defend some α ∈ A \ E. As E is <-admissible,
E ∪ {α} is <-admissible, by Lemma 3. But then E is not ⊆maximally <-admissible, contrary to E being <-preferred.
Hence, by contradiction, E must be <-complete.
Further, as in ABA, <-stable semantics is subsumed by
both <-preferred and <-complete semantics, as shown next.
Proposition 8. Any <-stable extension of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) is
a <-preferred extension too.
Proof. Let E be a <-stable extension of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6). As
E <-attacks every {β} * E, it must be ⊆-maximally <admissible. Hence, E is <-preferred.

Proposition 9. Any <-stable extension of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) is
a <-complete extension too.
Proof. Let E be a <-stable extension of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6). For
any β 6∈ E, <-stability of E means that E < {β}, and if
E <-defended β as well, it would mean that E < E, contradicting its <-conflict-freeness. Hence, E contains every
assumption it <-defends, and so is <-complete.
Finally, we consider <-ideal semantics.
Proposition 10. (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) admits a unique <-ideal
extension.
Proof. From Proposition 6 we know that (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) admits <-preferred extensions, so let S be their intersection. If
S = ∅, then it is <-admissible, and so an <-ideal extension (unique). If S 6= ∅ is <-admissible, then it is an <ideal extension (unique as well). Else, assume S 6= ∅ is not
<-admissible. Then its ⊆-maximally <-admissible subsets
I ( S are <-ideal extensions of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6). Suppose
I and I ′ are two distinct <-admissible subsets of S. Then
their union I ∪ I ′ is a subset of S too, and so <-conflictfree. By Lemma 3, I ∪ I ′ <-defends its assumptions, so
must be <-admissible. Consequently, there can be only one
⊆-maximally <-admissible subset of S, i.e. (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6)
has a unique <-ideal extension.
Proposition 11. Any <-ideal extension of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) is
a <-complete extension too.
Proof. By Proposition 10, it has a unique <-ideal extension I. Suppose for a contradiction that I is not <-complete.
Then there is α ∈ A \ I <-defended by I. Such α must be
contained in the intersection S of <-preferred extensions of
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6), because I ⊆ S <-defends α and every <preferred extension E of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) is <-complete (by
Proposition 7). But then, I ∪ {α} is <-admissible, according to Lemma 3, so that I is not <-ideal—a contradiction.
Therefore, I must be <-complete.
These properties that ABA+ exhibits in the presence of
Contraposition will be used to show, in the coming sections, that ABA+ satisfies certain principles of preference
handling and non-monotonic reasoning.

5.1 Conflict Preservation
The first property insists that extensions returned after accounting for preferences should be conflict-free with respect
to attack relation not taking into account preferences. We
formulate it as a principle applicable to ABA+ as follows.
Definition 14. (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) fulfils the Principle of Conflict Preservation for <-σ semantics if for all <-σ extensions E ⊆ A of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6), for any α, β ∈ A,
{α}
{β} implies that either α 6∈ E or β 6∈ E.
In (Čyras and Toni 2016a) it was shown that Lemma 2
guarantees the following result.
Proposition 12. E ⊆ A is conflict-free in (L, R, A,¯¯¯) iff E
is <-conflict-free in (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6).
Consequently, ABA+ ensures conflict preservation:
Proposition 13. (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) fulfils the Principle of Conflict Preservation for any semantics <-σ.
Proof. Let E be a <-σ extension of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6), If
α, β ∈ E and {α}
{β}, then {α, β} is not conflict-free,
and hence not <-conflict-free, by Proposition 12. But then E
is not <-conflict-free either, which is a contradiction. Thus,
either one of α and β does not belong to E.

5.2 Empty Preferences
The second property insists that if there are no preferences,
then the extensions returned using a preference handling
mechanism should be the same as those obtained without
accounting for preferences. We formulate it as a principle
applicable to ABA+ as follows.
Definition 15. Suppose that the preference relation 6
in (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) is the strict empty ordering ∅. Then
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, ∅) fulfils the Principle of Empty Preferences
for ∅-σ semantics if for all ∅-σ extensions E ⊆ A of
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, ∅), E is a σ extension of (L, R, A,¯¯¯).
In (Čyras and Toni 2016a) the following result was shown
to hold.
Theorem 14. E ⊆ A is a σ-extension of (L, R, A,¯¯¯) iff E
is an ∅-σ extension of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, ∅).
This theorem, in addition to saying that ABA+ is a conservative extension of ABA, immediately yields the satisfaction
of the principle in question:
Proposition 15. (L, R, A,¯¯¯, ∅) fulfils the Principle of
Empty Preferences for any semantics ∅-σ.

5.3 Maximal Elements

5 Preference Handling Properties
Referring
to
(Amgoud and Vesic 2009),
in
(Brewka, Truszczyński, and Woltran 2010) the authors
hinted at two (arguably) desirable properties of argumentation formalisms dealing with preferences, that concern
conflict preservation and the absence of preferences. In the
next two subsections we indicate that ABA+ satisfies those
properties, and in the following subsections show that other
(arguably) desirable properties of preference handling are
too satisfied by ABA+ .

(Amgoud and Vesic 2014) proposed a property concerning
inclusion in extensions of the ‘strongest’ arguments, i.e. arguments that are maximal w.r.t. preference ordering. We
next reformulate the property to be applicable to ABA+ .
Definition 16. Suppose the preference ordering 6 of
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) is total and further assume that the set M =
{α ∈ A : ∄β ∈ A with α < β} is <-conflict-free.
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) fulfils the Principle of Maximal Elements
for <-σ semantics if for all <-σ extensions E ⊆ A of
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6), it holds that M ⊆ E.

As an illustration, in Example 8, α is a unique 6maximal element in A, and {α} is a unique <-σ extension of
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6), whence (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) fulfils the Principle
of Maximal Elements for any semantics <-σ.
Our next result shows that in general, ABA+ satisfies this
principle under <-stable and <-complete semantics.
Proposition 16. (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) fulfils the Principle of
Maximal Elements for <-stable and <-complete semantics.
Proof. Let the preference ordering 6 of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) be
total and suppose M = {α ∈ A : ∄β ∈ A with α < β} is
<-conflict-free. We first show that M is not <-attacked.
Fix α ∈ M and suppose for a contradiction that for some
S ⊆ A it holds that S < {α}. So either (i) ∃B ⊢R α with
B ⊆ S and ∀β ∈ B α 6 β or β
α, or (ii) {α} ⊢R β
for some β ∈ S with α < β. Note that the case (ii) cannot
happen, because α is 6-maximal. So consider case (i). Since
6 is total, it follows that α 6 β ∀β ∈ B. But as α is 6maximal, it must also hold that β 6 α, for any β ∈ B. From
here, we show B ⊆ M . Indeed, fix β ∈ B and assume for
a contradiction that β 6∈ M . Then ∃γ ∈ A such that β < γ.
By transitivity, α < γ, contradicting α’s 6-maximality. So
we must have β ∈ M , and consequently, B ⊆ M .
But now, since α ∈ M, B ⊆ M and B < {α}, this
contradicts <-conflict-freeness of M . Therefore, by contradiction, S 6 < {α}, for any S ⊆ A. Since α ∈ M was
arbitrary, we have M <-unattacked, as required.
If (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) admits no <-stable or <-complete extensions, then the principle is fulfilled trivially. Otherwise,
let E ⊆ A be <-stable in (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6). Pick α ∈ M and
suppose for a contradiction that α 6∈ E. Then E < {α},
which is a contradiction. Thus, α ∈ S, and hence M ⊆ S.
Now let E be a <-complete extension of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6)
and suppose for a contradiction M * E. Then E does not
<-defend some α ∈ M . This means that S < M for some
S ⊆ A, which is a contradiction. Hence, M ⊆ E.
This principle may, however, be violated under, say,
<-preferred semantics: in Example 12, the framework
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) to begin with, admits {α, β} as a <preferred extension, while γ 6∈ {α, β} is a 6-maximal element. However, assuming Contraposition, the Principle of
Maximal Elements is satisfied under the remaining semantics too.
Corollary 17. If (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) satisfies the Axiom of Contraposition, then it fulfils the Principle of Maximal Elements for <-preferred/<-ideal/<-grounded semantics.
Proof. Follows from Propositions 4, 7, 11 and 16.

5.4

Principle I

(Brewka and Eiter 2000) formulated a principle for sound
extension-based default reasoning with preferences, which
we reformulate for ABA+ next.
Definition 17. (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) fulfils Principle I for <-σ
semantics if for all E, E ′ ⊆ A such that E = E0 ∪ {α}
and E ′ = E0 ∪ {α′ } for some E0 ⊆ A, with α, α′ 6∈

E0 and α′ < α, it holds that if E is a <-σ extension of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6), then E ′ is not a <-σ extension of
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6).
This principle insists that if two coherent viewpoints of a
situation differ only in that each of them contains a single assumption not contained in the other, then the viewpoint with
the more preferred assumption should be chosen. ABA+ satisfies this principle under <-stable semantics.
Proposition 18. (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) fulfils Principle I for <stable semantics.
Proof. Suppose for a contradiction that both E = E0 ∪ {α}
and E ′ = E0 ∪ {α′ }, where α′ < α, are <-stable extensions
of (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6). As E ′ is <-stable and α 6∈ E ′ , we get
E ′ < {α}. As E is <-conflict-free, we find E0 6 < {α},
so (from E ′ < {α} we get that): (i) either there is E ′′ ∪
{α′ } ⊢R α with E ′′ ⊆ E0 and ε 6< α ∀ε ∈ E ′′ ∪ {α′ };
(ii) or {α} ⊢R α′ is such that α < α′ . As α′ < α, both
cases lead to a contradiction, so that E ′ is not a <-stable
extension, provided E is.
In Example 8, E = {α} is a unique <-stable extension of
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6), which illustrates the principle as follows:
take E0 = ∅ so that E = {α} and E ′ = {β}, where β < α.
It is important that Principle I is satisfied under <-stable semantics, because (Brewka and Eiter 1999) investigated (preferred) answer sets of logic programs, and answer sets in
Logic Programming correspond to stable extensions in ABA
(Bondarenko et al. 1997). Satisfaction of the principle gives
hope that preferred answer set semantics can be captured in
ABA+ , as answer set semantics is captured in ABA.
Principle I, however, may be violated under <-preferred
semantics: in Example 12, (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) has two <preferred extensions {α, β} and {β, γ}, and yet α < γ.
Note, though, that (L, R′ , A,¯¯¯, 6) satisfies the Axiom of
Contraposition and has a unique <-σ extension {β, γ}, and
thus fulfils Principle I for any semantics <-σ. Based on our
investigations, we conjecture that assuming Contraposition,
ABA+ frameworks fulfil the principle for the remaining semantics as well. Verifying this is left as future work.

6 Non-Monotonic Reasoning Properties
(Čyras and Toni 2015) proposed and studied the well known
non-monotonic inference properties of Cautious Monotonicity (MON henceforth) and Cumulative Transitivity
(CUT henceforth) for ABA. Here, we investigate some of
those properties for ABA+ . We first recall (some of) the
properties considered and results obtained.1
Assume as given a fixed, but otherwise arbitrary (flat)
ABA framework F = (L, R, A,¯¯¯). Let E be a σ extension of F . In what follows, E ′ will denote a σ extension of a
newly constructed ABA framework F ′ . To avoid trivialities,
we consider cases only where each of F and F ′ has at least
one σ extension—E and E ′ respectively.
1

In (Čyras and Toni 2015), instead of sceptical/credulous (see
below) the words strong/weak were used, respectively; we have
altered the names to adhere to the more common terminology.

We first recall the STRICT setting regarding strengthening of information. Given ψ ∈ Cn(E) \ A, define F ′ =
(L, R ∪ {ψ ← ⊤}, A,¯¯¯). There are four properties:
SCEPTICAL STRICT CUT :
For all extensions E ′ of F ′ we have Cn(E ′ ) ⊆ Cn(E);
CREDULOUS STRICT CUT :
There is an extension E ′ of F ′ with Cn(E ′ ) ⊆ Cn(E);
SCEPTICAL STRICT MON :
For all extensions E ′ of F ′ we have Cn(E) ⊆ Cn(E ′ );
CREDULOUS STRICT MON :
There is an extension E ′ of F ′ with Cn(E) ⊆ Cn(E ′ ).
Table 1 summarizes results pertaining to ABA (sceptical
and credulous versions coincide under grounded and ideal
semantics, and for other semantics the status of the credulous property is indicated in parentheses).
Property
STRICT
CUT
STRICT
MON

Grd.

Ideal

Stable

Pref.

Cpl.

X

X

X (X)

X (X)

X (X)

X

X

X (X)

X (X)

X (X)

Table 1: STRICT CUT / MON for standard ABA
We now recall the ASM setting, where conclusions that
are themselves assumptions are being confirmed. Given ψ ∈
Cn(E) ∩ A, define F ′ = (L, R ∪ {ψ ← ⊤}, A \ {ψ},¯¯¯).2
The properties are as follows:
SCEPTICAL ASM CUT :
For all extensions E ′ of F ′ we have Cn(E ′ ) ⊆ Cn(E);
CREDULOUS ASM CUT :
There is an extension E ′ of F ′ with Cn(E ′ ) ⊆ Cn(E);
SCEPTICAL ASM MON :
For all extensions E ′ of F ′ we have Cn(E) ⊆ Cn(E ′ );
CREDULOUS ASM MON :
There is an extension E ′ of F ′ with Cn(E) ⊆ Cn(E ′ ).
Table 2 summarizes results regarding ABA in the ASM
setting (notation as before).
Property
ASM CUT
ASM MON

Grd.
X
X

Ideal
X
X

Stable
X (X)
X (X)

Pref.
X (X)
X (X)

Cpl.
X (X)
X (X)

Table 2: ASM CUT / MON for standard ABA
The non-monotonic inference properties CUT and
MON can be readily applied to ABA+ . Take F to be an
2

For brevity reasons, the same symbol¯¯¯ is used for both contrary mappings, and in the new framework F ′ , the contrary mapping¯¯¯ is implicitly restricted to a diminished set of assumptions.

ABA+ framework (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6), let E be its <-σ extension, and given ψ ∈ Cn(E), define F ′ as follows:
• STRICT setting: F ′ = (L, R ∪ {ψ ← ⊤}, A,¯¯¯, 6);
• ASM setting: F ′ = (L, R ∪ {ψ ← ⊤}, A \ {ψ},¯¯¯, 6′ ),
where 6′ is a restriction of 6 to A \ {ψ}.
We can then analyse whether the non-monotonic inference properties in question are satisfied in ABA+ . Trivially,
as ABA+ is a conservative extension of ABA (cf. Theorem 14), properties violated in ABA will remain violated
in ABA+ . Therefore, we will focus on those that are satisfied in ABA; in particular, the credulous versions except for
MON under ideal semantics.
Example 18. As an illustration of the properties, recall Example 12. The ABA+ framework F = (L, R′ , A,¯¯¯, 6) (that
satisfies the Axiom of Contraposition) has a unique <-σ extension {β, γ} with Cn({β, γ}) = {α, β, γ}.
• STRICT setting: take α and let F ′ = (L, R ∪ {α ←
⊤}, A,¯¯¯, 6). Then F ′ has a unique <-σ extension {β, γ}.
• ASM setting: take β and let F ′ = (L, R ∪ {β ← ⊤}, A \
{β},¯¯¯, 6′ ) with α <′ γ. Then F ′ likewise has a unique
<-σ extension {β, γ}.
As conclusions of extensions of both F and F ′ are actually
the same, the credulous versions of the properties are indeed
satisfied in both settings.
In what follows, we assume that a given ABA+ framework F = (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) satisfies the Axiom of Weak
Contraposition (Čyras and Toni 2016b)), which is a weaker
form of the Axiom of Contraposition.
We first show that ABA+ inherits the behaviour from
ABA with respect to the non-monotonic inference properties under <-stable semantics.
Proposition 19. F fulfils CREDULOUS STRICT CUT and
CREDULOUS STRICT MON for <-stable semantics.
Proof. Let F = (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) be a flat ABA+ framework
satisfying the Axiom of Weak Contraposition, let E be a
<-stable extension of F , and let ψ ∈ Cn(E) \ A. Define
F ′ = (L, R ∪ {ψ ← ⊤}, A,¯¯¯, 6). Cn and Cn′ will denote
the conclusion operators of, respectively, F and F ′ . The <attack relations of F and F ′ will be denoted by < and
′
< , respectively. We claim that E is a <-stable extension
of F ′ .
Suppose for a contradiction that E is not <-conflictfree in F ′ . Then E is not conflict-free in (L, R ∪ {ψ ←
⊤}, A,¯¯¯), by (Čyras and Toni 2016b, Theorem 5). But then,
as ψ ∈ Cn(E), E is not conflict-free in (L, R, A,¯¯¯) either.
Hence, by (Čyras and Toni 2016b, Theorem 5), E is not <conflict-free in F , which is a contradiction. Thus, E is <conflict-free in F ′ .
Now let β ∈ A \ E be arbitrary. We aim to show that
E ′< {β}. To this end, as E is <-stable in F , we know
that E < {β}. We split into cases.
R
• Suppose E
< {β} via normal attack. Then A ⊢
β, A ⊆ E, R ⊆ R and ∀α ∈ A α 6< β. If this deduction does not involve ψ, then clearly we have A ′<
{β} via normal attack. Else, we can find A′ ⊆ A and
′
R′ ⊆ R ∪ {ψ ← ⊤} such that A′ ⊢R β, whence clearly
′
′
A
< {β} via normal attack too.

• Suppose E
< {β} via reverse attack. Then {β} ⊢ ε
for some ε ∈ E such that β < ε. Since β 6∈ E and E is
<-conflict-free, this <-attack does not involve ψ. Hence,
{ε} ′< {β} via reverse attack too.
In any event, E ′< {β}, as required. Therefore, E is <stable in F ′ .
Proposition 20. F fulfils CREDULOUS ASM CUT and
CREDULOUS ASM MON for <-stable semantics.
Proof. Let F = (L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) be a flat ABA+ framework
satisfying the Axiom of Weak Contraposition, let E be a <stable extension of F , and let ψ ∈ Cn(E) ∩ A. Define F ′ =
(L, R ∪ {ψ ← ⊤}, A \ {ψ},¯¯¯, 6′ ), where 6′ is a restriction
of 6 to A \ {ψ}. Cn and Cn′ will denote the conclusion
operators of, respectively, F and F ′ . The <-attack relations
of F and F ′ will be denoted by < and ′< , respectively.
We show that E \ {ψ} is <-stable in F ′ .
Suppose for a contradiction that E \{ψ} is not <-conflictfree in F ′ . Then E \{ψ} is not conflict-free in (L, R∪{ψ ←
⊤}, A\{ψ},¯¯¯), by (Čyras and Toni 2016b, Theorem 5). But
then, as ψ ∈ Cn(E), E is not conflict-free in (L, R, A,¯¯¯).
Hence, by (Čyras and Toni 2016b, Theorem 5), E is not <conflict-free in F , which is a contradiction. Thus, E \ {ψ}
must be <-conflict-free in F ′ .
Now let β ∈ A \ (E ∪ {ψ}) be arbitrary. We aim to show
that E \ {ψ} ′< {β}. To this end, as E is <-stable in F ,
we know that E < {β}.
R
• Suppose E
< {β} via normal attack. Then A ⊢
β, A ⊆ E, R ⊆ R and ∀α ∈ A α 6< β. If ψ 6∈ A,
then we have A ′< {β} via normal attack. Else, we find
A\{ψ} ⊢R β, so that A\{ψ} ′< {β} via normal attack.
• Suppose E < {β} via reverse attack. Then {β} ⊢ ε for
some ε ∈ E such that β < ε. If ε 6= ψ, then this <-attack
′
does not involve ψ, and so we have {ε}
< {β} via
reverse attack, where {ε} ⊆ E \ {ψ}. Else, {β} ⊢ ψ and
β < ψ, so the Axiom of Weak Contraposition guarantees
that, in F , we have A ⊢ β for some A ⊆ {ψ}. But then,
in F ′ , we find ∅ ⊢ β.
In any event, E \ {ψ} ′< {β}, as required. Therefore, E \
{ψ} is <-stable in F ′ . Finally, note that Cn(E) = Cn′ (E \
{ψ}).
In general, ABA+ does not inherit all the properties from
ABA. In particular, CUT and MON can in general be violated
in both STRICT and ASM settings under all but <-stable
semantics. The following examples illustrate violations.
Example 19 (STRICT MON violation). Consider F =
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) with
• A = {α, β, p, q, ε, x},
• R = {ψ ← p, q, ε ← β, x, ψ, α ← β, x, p, β ←
α, x, p, x ← x},
• β < α.
This flat ABA+ framework F satisfies the Axiom of Weak
Contraposition. It has a unique <-grounded/<-ideal/<preferred/<-complete (but not <-stable) extension E =
{p, q, α, ε} with Cn(E) = {p, q, α, ψ, ε}. Note that {α} <defends {ε} from {β, x, p, q} by <-attacking the latter via

reverse attack, due to the rule α ← β, x, p and the preference β < α.
Consider F ′ = (L, R∪{ψ ← ⊤}, A,¯¯¯, 6). In this framework, {ε} is <-attacked by the self-<-attacking {β, x}, and
no subset of E can <-defend {ε} against this <-attack. Indeed, F ′ has a unique <-grounded/<-ideal/<-preferred/<complete (but not <-stable) extension E ′ = {p, q, α} with
Cn′ (E ′ ) = {p, q, α, ψ} + Cn(E). (Here and in further examples, Cn′ is the conclusion operator of F ′ .) Hence, F
does not fulfil STRICT MON under any of the four semantics in question.
Example 20 (ASM MON violation). Consider F and E from
Example 19. Let F ′ = (L, R ∪ {α ← ⊤}, A \ {α},¯¯¯, ∅).
In F ′ , {ε} is <-attacked by the self-<-attacking {β, x, p, q},
and cannot be <-defended by any set not containing x. Overall, F ′ has a unique <-grounded/<-ideal/<-preferred/<complete (but not <-stable) extension E ′ = {p, q} with
Cn′ (E ′ ) = {p, q, α, ψ} + Cn(E). Hence, F does not fulfil
ASM MON under any of the four semantics in question.
Example 21 (ASM CUT violation). Consider F =
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) with
• A = {α, β, p, q, ε, x},
• R = {ψ ← p, q, ε ← β, x, ψ, α ← β, x, p, β ←
α, x, p, x ← x, ψ ← ⊤},
• β < α.
So F is simply F ′ from Example 19. It satisfies the
Axiom of Weak Contraposition and we know that it has
a unique <-grounded/<-ideal/<-preferred/<-complete (but
not <-stable) extension E = {p, q, α} with Cn(E) =
{p, q, α, ψ}. Let F ′ = (L, R ∪ {p ← ⊤}, A \ {p},¯¯¯, 6
). In F ′ , given that p is a fact, the <-attacker {β, x} of
{ε} is <-attacked by {α} via reverse attack. Thus, {α}
<-defends {ε}, and so E ′ = {q, α, ε} with Cn′ (E ′ ) =
{p, q, α, ψ, ε} * Cn(E) is a unique <-grounded/<-ideal/<preferred/<-complete (but not <-stable) extension of F ′ .
This shows that F does not fulfil ASM CUT under any of
the four semantics in question.
Example 22 (STRICT CUT violation). Consider F =
(L, R, A,¯¯¯, 6) with
• A = {α, β, p, q, ε, x},
• R = {ψ ← p, q, ε ← β, x, ψ, α ← β, x, y, y ←
p, β ← α, x, p, x ← x, β ← α, x, ψ ← ⊤},
• β < α.
(So, in contrast to the framework from Example 19, there is
an intermediate non-assumption y deducible from {p} and
replacing p in the rule α ← β, x, p; we also have ψ as a fact,
and the rule β ← α, x will be needed for Weak Contraposition in the framework F ′ after the change.)
F satisfies the Axiom of Weak Contraposition and has
a unique <-grounded/<-ideal/<-preferred/<-complete (but
not <-stable) extension E = {p, q, α} with Cn(E) =
{p, q, α, ψ, y}. Let F ′ = (L, R ∪ {y ← ⊤}, A,¯¯¯, 6).
(Since in F ′ we have the deduction {β, x} ⊢{α←β,x} α with
β < α, the rule β ← α, x guarantees that F ′ satisfies the
Axiom of Weak Contraposition.) Similarly to Example 21,
{α} <-defends {ε}, and F ′ has a unique <-grounded/<ideal/<-preferred/<-complete (but not <-stable) extension

E ′ = {p, q, α, ε} with Cn′ (E ′ ) = {p, q, α, ψ, y, ε} *
Cn(E). Hence, F does not fulfil STRICT CUT under any
of the four semantics in question.
Table 3 summarizes this section’s results (sceptical and
credulous versions coincide under <-grounded and <-ideal
semantics; for other semantics the credulous version is indicated in parentheses.)
Property
<-g. <-id. <-stb.
STRICT/ASM
X
X
X (X)
CUT
STRICT/ASM
X
X
X (X)
MON

<-pr.

<-cpl.

X (X)

X (X)

X (X)

X (X)

Table 3: (STRICT and ASM) CUT and MON for ABA+

7 Related and Future Work
The
principle
of
Contraposition
of
(strict)
rules
(see
e.g.
(Caminada and Amgoud 2007;
Modgil and Prakken 2013))
is
notably
employed
in
the
well
studied
structured argumentation
formalism
ASPIC+
(Modgil and Prakken 2013;
Modgil and Prakken 2014). The principle as such is also inherently present in classical logic-based approaches to structured argumentation such as (Gorogiannis and Hunter 2011;
Besnard and Hunter 2014). Similarly as in ASPIC+ ,
ABA+ utilizes Contraposition to ensure the Fundamental
Lemma (cf. Lemma 3). As a consequence, Contraposition paves way to satisfaction of desirable properties
of ABA+ semantics, as well as preference handling as
discussed in Section 5. Whether the Axiom of Contraposition can be relaxed for ABA+ to obtain the same results
is a line of future research. So far we know only that a
particular relaxation, namely the Axiom of Weak Contraposition (Čyras and Toni 2016b), changes the behaviour of
ABA+ with respect to non-monotonic reasoning properties,
as discussed in Section 6.
The preference handling principle discussed in Section
5.4 was originally proposed, along with some other properties, by (Brewka and Eiter 1999) for answer set programming (ASP) with preferences. To the best of our knowledge,
reformulation of Principle I for ABA+ is the first application
of this principle to argumentation with preferences. Building
on (Brewka and Eiter 1999), (Šimko 2014) discussed an extended set of principles for ASP with preferences, most of
which focus on preferences over rules. Whether those principles can be applied to ABA+ is a future work direction.
Regarding preference handling in argumentation, along
with the Principle of Maximal Elements discussed in Section 5.3, (Amgoud and Vesic 2014) suggested several arguably desirable properties of argumentation with preferences. Those properties are exhibited in ABA+ as Proposition 12 and Theorem 14. Referring to those properties, (Brewka, Truszczyński, and Woltran 2010) also hinted
at other properties regarding selection among extensions, as
possible principles of preference handling in argumentation.
Relating those principles to ABA+ is left for future work.

In terms on non-monotonic reasoning properties,
Cautious Monotonicity and Cumulative Transitivity
(studied in Section 6) are traced to (Makinson 1988;
Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor 1990) and fall into the
well studied area of analysing non-monotonic reasoning
with respect to information change (cf. (Rott 2001)).
In argumentation setting, the latter is also known as
argumentation dynamics, and has recently been a
topic of interest in the argumentation community (see
e.g.
(Cayrol, de Saint-Cyr, and Lagasquie-Schiex 2010;
Falappa et al. 2011;
Baroni et al. 2014;
Coste-Marquis et al. 2014;
Booth et al. 2014;
Diller et al. 2015;
Baumann and Brewka 2015)).
In
particular, non-monotonic inference properties were
investigated in (Hunter 2010) with respect to argument–
claim entailment in logic-based argumentation systems;
in (Čyras and Toni 2015) for ABA; and with regards to
ASPIC+ -type-of argumentation systems in (Dung 2016).
Only the latter of the three works concerns argumentation
with preferences. In addition to considering different
structured argumentation setting and different preference
handling mechanisms, it diverges from our analysis in
Section 6 in that (Dung 2016) regards Cumulative Transitivity plus Cautious Monotonicity as a single property of
Cumulativity and studies it only for stable and complete
semantics. Other argumentation-related properties from
(Dung 2016) will be studied for ABA+ in the future.
Several other topics of interest are left for future
work. For instance, integrating dynamic preferences
(see e.g. (Zhang and Foo 1997; Prakken and Sartor 1999;
Brewka and Woltran 2010)) within ABA+ and studying their interaction with the properties of preference handling as well as of non-monotonic inference. Also, relation of ABA+ to Logic Programming with preferences (e.g. (Sakama and Inoue 1996;
Zhang and Foo 1997;
Brewka and Eiter 1999))
and
non-monotonic
reasoning
formalisms
equipped
with preferences in general (e.g. (Brewka 1989;
Baader and Hollunder 1995;
Rintanen 1998;
Brewka and Eiter 2000;
Delgrande and Schaub 2000;
Stolzenburg et al. 2003; Kakas and Moraitis 2003)) is left
for future research.
There are as well numerous approaches to integrating reasoning with preferences within argumentation,
e.g.
(Amgoud and Cayrol 2002;
Bench-Capon 2003;
Kaci and van der Torre 2008;
Modgil 2009;
Modgil and Prakken 2010;
Baroni et al. 2011; Dunne et al. 2011; Brewka et al. 2013;
Amgoud and Vesic 2014;
Besnard and Hunter 2014;
Garcı́a and Simari 2014;
Wakaki 2014;
Modgil and Prakken 2013;
Modgil and Prakken 2014;
Dung 2016). It would be interesting to study these formalisms with respect to the properties considered in this
paper, where it has not already been done. We leave this as
future work.

8 Conclusions
We investigated various properties of a recently
proposed
non-monotonic
reasoning
formalism
ABA+ (Čyras and Toni 2016a) that deals with preferences in structured argumentation. In particular, we first
established that assuming the principle of Contraposition
(see e.g. (Modgil and Prakken 2013)), ABA+ semantics
exhibit desirable properties akin to those of other existing
argumentation formalisms, such as (Dung 1995). We then
showed that ABA+ satisfies some (arguably) desirable
principles of preference handling in argumentation and
non-monotonic reasoning, e.g. (Brewka and Eiter 1999).
Finally, we analysed non-monotonic inference properties
(as in (Čyras and Toni 2015)) of ABA+ under various
semantics. We believe our work contributes to the understanding of preferences within argumentation in particular,
and in non-monotonic reasoning at large.

References
[Amgoud and Cayrol 2002] Amgoud, L., and Cayrol, C.
2002. A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial
Intelligence 34(1-3):197–215.
[Amgoud and Vesic 2009] Amgoud, L., and Vesic, S. 2009.
Repairing Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks. In
Boutilier, C., ed., 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 665–670.
[Amgoud and Vesic 2014] Amgoud, L., and Vesic, S. 2014.
Rich Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 55(2):585–606.
[Baader and Hollunder 1995] Baader, F., and Hollunder, B.
1995. Priorities on Defaults with Prerequisites, and Their
Application in Treating Specificity in Terminological Default Logic. Journal of Automated Reasoning 15(1):41–68.
[Baroni et al. 2011] Baroni, P.; Cerutti, F.; Giacomin, M.;
and Guida, G. 2011. AFRA: Argumentation Framework
with Recursive Attacks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 52(1):19–37.
[Baroni et al. 2014] Baroni, P.; Boella, G.; Cerutti, F.; Giacomin, M.; van der Torre, L.; and Villata, S. 2014. On the
Input/Output Behavior of Argumentation Frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 217:144–197.
[Baumann and Brewka 2015] Baumann, R., and Brewka, G.
2015. AGM Meets Abstract Argumentation: Expansion
and Revision for Dung Frameworks. In Yang, Q., and
Wooldridge, M., eds., 24th International Joint Conference
on Artificial Intelligence, 2734–2740. Buenos Aires: AAAI
Press.
[Bench-Capon 2003] Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 2003. Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value Based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation
13(3):429–448.
[Besnard and Hunter 2014] Besnard, P., and Hunter, A.
2014. Constructing Argument Graphs with Deductive Arguments: A Tutorial. Argument & Computation 5(1):5–30.

[Besnard et al. 2014] Besnard, P.; Garcı́a, A. J.; Hunter, A.;
Modgil, S.; Prakken, H.; Simari, G. R.; and Toni, F. 2014.
Introduction to Structured Argumentation. Argument &
Computation 5(1):1–4.
[Bondarenko et al. 1997] Bondarenko, A.; Dung, P. M.;
Kowalski, R.; and Toni, F.
1997.
An Abstract,
Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning.
Artificial Intelligence 93(97):63–101.
[Booth et al. 2014] Booth, R.; Gabbay, D. M.; Kaci, S.; Rienstra, T.; and van der Torre, L. 2014. Abduction and Dialogical Proof in Argumentation and Logic Programming.
In Schaub, T.; Friedrich, G.; and O’Sullivan, B., eds., 21st
European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 263
of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 117–
122. Prague: IOS Press.
[Brewka and Eiter 1999] Brewka, G., and Eiter, T. 1999.
Preferred Answer Sets for Extended Logic Programs. Artificial Intelligence 109(1-2):297–356.
[Brewka and Eiter 2000] Brewka, G., and Eiter, T. 2000. Prioritizing Default Logic. In Hölldobler, S., ed., Intellectics
and Computational Logic, volume 19 of Applied Logic Series, 27–45. Kluwer.
[Brewka and Woltran 2010] Brewka, G., and Woltran, S.
2010. Abstract Dialectical Frameworks. In Lin, F.; Sattler, U.; and Truszczyński, M., eds., Principles of Knowledge
Representation and Reasoning, 12th International Conference. Toronto: AAAI Press.
[Brewka et al. 2013] Brewka, G.; Ellmauthaler, S.; Strass,
H.; Wallner, J. P.; and Woltran, S. 2013. Abstract Dialectical
Frameworks Revisited. In Rossi, F., ed., 23rd International
Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 803–809. Beijing: IJCAI/AAAI.
[Brewka, Niemelä, and Truszczyński 2008a] Brewka,
G.;
Niemelä, I.; and Truszczyński, M. 2008a. Nonmonotonic
reasoning. In van Harmelen, F.; Lifschitz, V.; and Porter,
B. W., eds., Handbook of Knowledge Representation,
volume 3 of Foundations of Artificial Intelligence. Elsevier.
239–284.
[Brewka, Niemelä, and Truszczyński 2008b] Brewka, G.;
Niemelä, I.; and Truszczyński, M. 2008b. Preferences and
Nonmonotonic Reasoning. AI Magazine 29(4):69–78.
[Brewka, Truszczyński, and Woltran 2010] Brewka,
G.;
Truszczyński, M.; and Woltran, S. 2010. Representing
Preferences Among Sets. In Fox, M., and Poole, D., eds.,
24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 273–278.
Atlanta, Georgia: AAAI Press.
[Brewka 1989] Brewka, G. 1989. Preferred Subtheories:
An Extended Logical Framework for Default Reasoning. In
Sridharan, N. S., ed., 11th International Joint Conference on
Artificial Intelligence, 1043–1048. Detroit: Morgan Kaufmann.
[Caminada and Amgoud 2007] Caminada, M., and Amgoud,
L. 2007. On the Evaluation of Argumentation Formalisms.
Artificial Intelligence 171(5-6):286–310.
[Cayrol, de Saint-Cyr, and Lagasquie-Schiex 2010] Cayrol,
C.; de Saint-Cyr, F.; and Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. 2010.

Change in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks: Adding
an Argument. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
38(1):49–84.
[Coste-Marquis et al. 2014] Coste-Marquis, S.; Konieczny,
S.; Mailly, J.-G.; and Marquis, P. 2014. On the Revision of Argumentation Systems: Minimal Change of Arguments Status. In Baral, C.; Giacomo, G. D.; and Eiter, T.,
eds., Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 14th International Conference. Vienna: AAAI Press.
[Čyras and Toni 2015] Čyras, K., and Toni, F. 2015. NonMonotonic Inference Properties for Assumption-Based Argumentation. In Black, E.; Modgil, S.; and Oren, N., eds.,
Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation - 3rd
International Workshop, volume 9524 of Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, 92–111. Buenos Aires: Springer.
[Čyras and Toni 2016a] Čyras, K., and Toni, F. 2016a.
ABA+: Assumption-Based Argumentation with Preferences. In Baral, C.; Delgrande, J. P.; and Wolter, F., eds.,
Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning,
15th International Conference, 553–556. Cape Town: AAAI
Press.
[Čyras and Toni 2016b] Čyras, K., and Toni, F. 2016b.
ABA+: Assumption-Based Argumentation with Preferences. CoRR 1610.03024.
[Delgrande and Schaub 2000] Delgrande, J. P., and Schaub,
T. H. 2000. Expressing Preferences in Default Logic. Artificial Intelligence 123(1-2):41–87.
[Delgrande et al. 2004] Delgrande, J. P.; Schaub, T. H.; Tompits, H.; and Wang, K. 2004. A Classification and Survey
of Preference Handling Approaches in Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Computational Intelligence 20(2):308–334.
[Diller et al. 2015] Diller, M.; Haret, A.; Linsbichler, T.;
Rummele, S.; and Woltran, S. 2015. An Extension-Based
Approach to Belief Revision in Abstract Argumentation. In
Yang, Q., and Wooldridge, M., eds., 24th International Joint
Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2926–2932. Buenos
Aires: AAAI Press.
[Domshlak et al. 2011] Domshlak, C.; Hüllermeier, E.; Kaci,
S.; and Prade, H. 2011. Preferences in AI: An Overview.
Artificial Intelligence 175(7-8):1037–1052.
[Dung 1995] Dung, P. M. 1995. On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-person Games. Artificial
Intelligence 77:321–357.
[Dung 2016] Dung, P. M. 2016. An Axiomatic Analysis of
Structured Argumentation with Priorities. Artificial Intelligence 231:107–150.
[Dunne et al. 2011] Dunne, P. E.; Hunter, A.; McBurney, P.;
Parsons, S.; and Wooldridge, M. 2011. Weighted Argument Systems: Basic Definitions, Algorithms, and Complexity Results. Artificial Intelligence 175(2):457–486.
[Falappa et al. 2011] Falappa, M.; Garcı́a, A. J.; KernIsberner, G.; and Simari, G. R. 2011. On the Evolving
Relation between Belief Revision and Argumentation. The
Knowledge Engineering Review 26(1):35–43.

[Garcı́a and Simari 2014] Garcı́a, A. J., and Simari, G. R.
2014. Defeasible Logic Programming: DeLP-servers, Contextual Queries, and Explanations for Answers. Argument &
Computation 5(1):63–88.
[Gorogiannis and Hunter 2011] Gorogiannis,
N.,
and
Hunter, A. 2011. Instantiating Abstract Argumentation
with Classical Logic Arguments: Postulates and Properties.
Artificial Intelligence 175(9-10):1479–1497.
[Hunter 2010] Hunter, A. 2010. Base Logics in Argumentation. In Baroni, P.; Cerutti, F.; Giacomin, M.; and Simari,
G. R., eds., Computational Models of Argument, volume 216
of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 275–
286. Desenzano del Garda: IOS Press.
[Kaci and van der Torre 2008] Kaci, S., and van der Torre, L.
2008. Preference-Based Argumentation: Arguments Supporting Multiple Values. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 48(3):730–751.
[Kaci 2011] Kaci, S. 2011. Working with Preferences. Less
is More. Springer.
[Kakas and Moraitis 2003] Kakas, A. C., and Moraitis, P.
2003. Argumentation Based Decision Making for Autonomous Agents. In 2nd International Joint Conference on
Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems, 883–890. Melbourne: ACM Press.
[Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor 1990] Kraus, S.; Lehmann,
D.; and Magidor, M. 1990. Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Preferential Models and Cumulative Logics. Artificial Intelligence 44(1-2):167–207.
[Makinson 1988] Makinson, D. 1988. General Theory of
Cumulative Inference. In Reinfrank, M.; de Kleer, J.; Ginsberg, M. L.; and Sandewall, E., eds., 2nd International
Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, volume 346 of
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 1–18. Grassau:
Springer.
[Modgil and Prakken 2010] Modgil, S., and Prakken, H.
2010. Reasoning About Preferences in Structured Extended
Argumentation Frameworks. In Baroni, P.; Cerutti, F.; Giacomin, M.; and Simari, G. R., eds., Computational Models
of Argument, volume 216 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 347–358. Desenzano del Garda:
IOS Press.
[Modgil and Prakken 2013] Modgil, S., and Prakken, H.
2013. A General Account of Argumentation with Preferences. Artificial Intelligence 195:361–397.
[Modgil and Prakken 2014] Modgil, S., and Prakken, H.
2014. The ASPIC+ Framework for Structured Argumentation: A Tutorial. Argument & Computation 5(1):31–62.
[Modgil 2009] Modgil, S. 2009. Reasoning About Preferences in Argumentation Frameworks. Artificial Intelligence
173(9-10):901–934.
[Prakken and Sartor 1999] Prakken, H., and Sartor, G. 1999.
A System for Defeasible Argumentation, with Defeasible
Priorities. In Wooldridge, M., and Veloso, M., eds., Artificial Intelligence Today, volume 1600 of Lecture Notes in
Computer Science. Springer. 365–379.

[Rahwan and Simari 2009] Rahwan, I., and Simari, G. R.
2009. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer.
[Rintanen 1998] Rintanen, J. 1998. Complexity of Prioritized Default Logics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 9:423–461.
[Rott 2001] Rott, H. 2001. Change, Choice and Inference:
A Study of Belief Revision and Nonmonotonic Reasoning.
Oxford University Press.
[Sakama and Inoue 1996] Sakama, C., and Inoue, K. 1996.
Representing Priorities in Logic Programs. In Maher, M. J.,
ed., Joint International Conference and Syposium on Logic
Programming, 82–96. Bonn: MIT Press.
[Simari and Loui 1992] Simari, G. R., and Loui, R. P. 1992.
A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and Its
Implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53(2-3):125–157.
[Šimko 2014] Šimko, A. 2014. Logic Programming With
Preferences On Rules. Ph.D. Dissertation, Comenius University in Bratislava.
[Stolzenburg et al. 2003] Stolzenburg, F.; Garcı́a, A. J.;
Chesñevar, C.; and Simari, G. R. 2003. Computing Generalized Specificity. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics
13:87–113.
[Toni 2014] Toni, F. 2014. A Tutorial on Assumption-Based
Argumentation. Argument & Computation 5(1):89–117.
[Wakaki 2014] Wakaki, T. 2014. Assumption-Based Argumentation Equipped with Preferences. In Dam, H. K.; Pitt,
J. V.; Xu, Y.; Governatori, G.; and Ito, T., eds., Principles
and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems - 17th International
Conference, volume 8861 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 116–132. Gold Coast: Springer.
[Zhang and Foo 1997] Zhang, Y., and Foo, N. Y. 1997. Answer Sets for Prioritized Logic Programs. In Maluszynski,
J., ed., International Symposium on Logic Programming,
69–83. Port Jefferson: MIT Press.

