Doing Analogical Reasoning in Dynamic Assumption-based Argumentation Frameworks

Abstract

Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings use to understand the world and make decisions. It is a dynamic process that explores an analogy between two states of affairs to claim further properties that might be shared between them. This paper tackles the question of how such arguments can be formulated in an assumption-based argumentation (ABA) framework. For that purpose, we introduce a notion of argument-based similarity measure between two argument's structures and a set of principles that such a measure should satisfy. Then, we propose an intuitive extension into an ABA framework, called ABA <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">≈</sup> , to deal with analogical reasoning properly. Finally, we also propose a formalization extended from ABA <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">≈</sup> , to deal with the dynamics in analogical argumentation and show how a structure can be handled.