# Preference Elicitation in Assumption-Based Argumentation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05721 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.05721/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 12 May 2020.

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Inferring Attack Relations for Gradual Semantics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.16118/) (2022)
- [Abstract Weighted Based Gradual Semantics in Argumentation Theory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.11472/) (2024)
- [On the Existence of an Inverse Solution for Preference-Based Reductions in Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.22958/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Various structured argumentation frameworks utilize preferences as part of their standard inference procedure to enable reasoning with preferences. In this paper, we consider an inverse of the standard reasoning problem, seeking to identify what preferences over assumptions could lead to a given set of conclusions being drawn. We ground our work in the Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) framework, and present an algorithm which computes and enumerates all possible sets of preferences over the assumptions in the system from which a desired conflict free set of conclusions can be obtained under a given semantic. After describing our algorithm, we establish its soundness, completeness and complexity.