Although various aspects of soft-constraint based norms have been explored, it is still challenging to understand preemption. Preemption is a situation where higher-level norms override lower-level norms when new information emerges. To address this, we propose a derivation state argumentation framework (DSA-framework). DSA-framework incorporates derivation states to explain how preemption arises based on evolving situational knowledge. Based on DSA-framework, we present an argumentative approach for explaining preemption. We formally prove that, under local optimality, DSA-framework can provide explanations why one consequence is obligatory or forbidden by soft-constraint based norms represented as logical constraint hierarchies.

It is widely acknowledged that transparency of automated decision making is crucial for deployability of intelligent systems, and explaining the reasons why some decisions are "good" and some are not is a way to achieving this transparency. We consider two variants of decision making, where "good" decisions amount to alternatives (i) meeting "most" goals, and (ii) meeting "most preferred" goals. We then define, for each variant and notion of "goodness" (corresponding to a number of existing notions in the literature), explanations in two formats, for justifying the selection of an alternative to audiences with differing needs and competences: lean explanations, in terms of goals satisfied and, for some notions of "goodness", alternative decisions, and argumentative explanations, reflecting the decision process leading to the selection, while corresponding to the lean explanations. To define argumentative explanations, we use assumption-based argumentation (ABA), a well-known form of structured argumentation. Specifically, we define ABA frameworks such that "good" decisions are admissible ABA arguments and draw argumentative explanations from dispute trees sanctioning this admissibility. Finally, we instantiate our overall framework for explainable decision-making to accommodate connections between goals and decisions in terms of decision graphs incorporating defeasible and non-defeasible information.

Humans engage in informal debates on a daily basis. By expressing their opinions and ideas in an argumentative fashion, they are able to gain a deeper understanding of a given problem and in some cases, find the best possible course of actions towards resolving it. In this paper, we develop a methodology to verify debates formalised as abstract argumentation frameworks. We first present a translation from debates to transition systems. Such transition systems can model debates and represent their evolution over time using a finite set of states. We then formalise relevant debate properties using temporal and strategy logics. These formalisations, along with a debate transition system, allow us to verify whether a given debate satisfies certain properties. The verification process can be automated using model checkers. Therefore, we also measure their performance when verifying debates, and use the results to discuss the feasibility of model checking debates.

We investigate case-based reasoning (CBR) problems where cases are represented by abstract factors and (positive or negative) outcomes, and an outcome for a new case, represented by abstract factors, needs to be established. To this end, we employ abstract argumentation (AA) and propose a novel methodology for CBR, called AA-CBR. The argumentative formulation naturally allows to characterise the computation of an outcome as a dialogical process between a proponent and an opponent, and can also be used to extract explanations for why an outcome for a new case is (not) computed.

In Dung's abstract argumentation, arguments are either acceptable or unacceptable, given a chosen notion of acceptability. This gives a coarse way to compare arguments. In this paper, we propose a counting approach for a more fine-gained assessment to arguments by counting the number of their respective attackers and defenders based on argument graph and argument game. An argument is more acceptable if the proponent puts forward more number of defenders for it and the opponent puts forward less number of attackers against it. We show that our counting model has two well-behaved properties: normalization and convergence. Then, we define a counting semantics based on this model, and investigate some general properties of the semantics.

Argumentation can be viewed as a process of generating explanations. However, existing argumentation semantics are developed for identifying acceptable arguments within a set, rather than giving concrete justifications for them. In this work, we propose a new argumentation semantics, related admissibility, designed for giving explanations to arguments in both Abstract Argumentation and Assumption-based Argumentation. We identify different types of explanations defined in terms of the new semantics. We also give a correct computational counterpart for explanations using dispute forests.