# Weighted Assumption Based Argumentation to reason about ethical principles and actions

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18056 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.18056/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 4 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Jun 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Multi-shot ASP solving with clingo](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.09811/) (2017)
- [A Voting-Based System for Ethical Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1709.06692/) (2017)
- [ABA+: Assumption-Based Argumentation with Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.03024/) (2016)
- [The Jiminy Advisor: Moral Agreements Among Stakeholders Based on Norms and Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1812.04741/) (2018)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Fuzzy Representation of Norms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.04249/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We augment Assumption Based Argumentation (ABA for short) with weighted argumentation. In a nutshell, we assign weights to arguments and then derive the weight of attacks between ABA arguments. We illustrate our proposal through running examples in the field of ethical reasoning, and present an implementation based on Answer Set Programming.