3,445 research outputs found
A QBF-based Formalization of Abstract Argumentation Semantics
Supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project) and by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSY project).Peer reviewedPostprin
Improved Answer-Set Programming Encodings for Abstract Argumentation
The design of efficient solutions for abstract argumentation problems is a
crucial step towards advanced argumentation systems. One of the most prominent
approaches in the literature is to use Answer-Set Programming (ASP) for this
endeavor. In this paper, we present new encodings for three prominent
argumentation semantics using the concept of conditional literals in
disjunctions as provided by the ASP-system clingo. Our new encodings are not
only more succinct than previous versions, but also outperform them on standard
benchmarks.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP),
Proceedings of ICLP 201
The Complexity of Repairing, Adjusting, and Aggregating of Extensions in Abstract Argumentation
We study the computational complexity of problems that arise in abstract
argumentation in the context of dynamic argumentation, minimal change, and
aggregation. In particular, we consider the following problems where always an
argumentation framework F and a small positive integer k are given.
- The Repair problem asks whether a given set of arguments can be modified
into an extension by at most k elementary changes (i.e., the extension is of
distance k from the given set).
- The Adjust problem asks whether a given extension can be modified by at
most k elementary changes into an extension that contains a specified argument.
- The Center problem asks whether, given two extensions of distance k,
whether there is a "center" extension that is a distance at most (k-1) from
both given extensions.
We study these problems in the framework of parameterized complexity, and
take the distance k as the parameter. Our results covers several different
semantics, including admissible, complete, preferred, semi-stable and stable
semantics
Counting Complexity for Reasoning in Abstract Argumentation
In this paper, we consider counting and projected model counting of
extensions in abstract argumentation for various semantics. When asking for
projected counts we are interested in counting the number of extensions of a
given argumentation framework while multiple extensions that are identical when
restricted to the projected arguments count as only one projected extension. We
establish classical complexity results and parameterized complexity results
when the problems are parameterized by treewidth of the undirected
argumentation graph. To obtain upper bounds for counting projected extensions,
we introduce novel algorithms that exploit small treewidth of the undirected
argumentation graph of the input instance by dynamic programming (DP). Our
algorithms run in time double or triple exponential in the treewidth depending
on the considered semantics. Finally, we take the exponential time hypothesis
(ETH) into account and establish lower bounds of bounded treewidth algorithms
for counting extensions and projected extension.Comment: Extended version of a paper published at AAAI-1
- ā¦