Assumption-based argumentation (ABA) is a central structured argumentation formalism. As shown recently, answer set programming (ASP) enables efficiently solving NP-hard reasoning tasks of ABA in practice, in particular in the commonly studied logic programming fragment of ABA. In this work, we harness recent advances in incremental ASP solving for developing effective algorithms for reasoning tasks in the logic programming fragment of ABA that are presumably hard for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy, including skeptical reasoning under preferred semantics as well as preferential reasoning. In particular, we develop non-trivial counterexample-guided abstraction refinement procedures based on incremental ASP solving for these tasks. We also show empirically that the procedures are significantly more effective than previously proposed algorithms for the tasks.

An answer set is a plain set of literals which has no further structure that would explain why certain literals are part of it and why others are not. We show how argumentation theory can help to explain why a literal is or is not contained in a given answer set by defining two justification methods, both of which make use of the correspondence between answer sets of a logic program and stable extensions of the assumption-based argumentation (ABA) framework constructed from the same logic program. Attack Trees justify a literal in argumentation-theoretic terms, i.e. using arguments and attacks between them, whereas ABA-Based Answer Set Justifications express the same justification structure in logic programming terms, that is using literals and their relationships. Interestingly, an ABA-Based Answer Set Justification corresponds to an admissible fragment of the answer set in question, and an Attack Tree corresponds to an admissible fragment of the stable extension corresponding to this answer set.