Deciding Acceptance in Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks

Peer reviewe

Acceptance in Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks

A Abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs), originally proposed by Dung, constitute a central formal model for the study of computational aspects of argumentation in AI. Credulous and skeptical acceptance of arguments in a given AF are well-studied problems both in terms of theoretical analysis-especially computational complexity-and the development of practical decision procedures for the problems. However, AFs make the assumption that all attacks between arguments are certain (i.e., present attacks are known to exist, and missing attacks are known to not exist), which can in various settings be a restrictive assumption. A generalization of AFs to incomplete AFs was recently proposed as a formalism that allows the representation of both uncertain attacks and uncertain arguments in AFs. In this article, we explore the impact of allowing for modeling such uncertainties in AFs on the computational complexity of natural generalizations of acceptance problems to incomplete AFs under various central AF semantics. Complementing the complexity-theoretic analysis, we also develop the first practical decision procedures for all of the NP-hard variants of acceptance in incomplete AFs. In terms of complexity analysis, we establish a full complexity landscape, showing that depending on the variant of acceptance and property/semantics, the complexity of acceptance in incomplete AFs ranges from polynomial-time decidable to completeness for Sigma(p)(3). In terms of algorithms, we show through an extensive empirical evaluation that an implementation of the proposed decision procedures, based on boolean satisfiability (SAT) solving, is effective in deciding variants of acceptance under uncertainties. We also establish conditions for what type of atomic changes are guaranteed to be redundant from the perspective of preserving extensions of completions of incomplete AFs, and show that the results allow for considerably improving the empirical efficiency of the proposed SAT-based counterexample-guided abstraction refinement algorithms for acceptance in incomplete AFs for problem variants with complexity beyond NP. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.Peer reviewe

Controllability of Control Argumentation Frameworks

Peer reviewe

Empirical Evaluation of Abstract Argumentation: Supporting the Need for Bipolar and Probabilistic Approaches

In dialogical argumentation it is often assumed that the involved parties always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other, realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views when new and correct information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is sufficient to represent their opinions. Although it is natural to make these assumptions as a starting point for further research, removing them or even acknowledging that such removal should happen is more challenging for some of these concepts than for others. Probabilistic argumentation is one of the approaches that can be harnessed for more accurate user modelling. The epistemic approach allows us to represent how much a given argument is believed by a given person, offering us the possibility to express more than just three agreement states. It is equipped with a wide range of postulates, including those that do not make any restrictions concerning how initial arguments should be viewed, thus potentially being more adequate for handling beliefs of the people that have not fully disclosed their opinions in comparison to Dung's semantics. The constellation approach can be used to represent the views of different people concerning the structure of the framework we are dealing with, including cases in which not all relations are acknowledged or when they are seen differently than intended. Finally, bipolar argumentation frameworks can be used to express both positive and negative relations between arguments. In this paper we describe the results of an experiment in which participants judged dialogues in terms of agreement and structure. We compare our findings with the aforementioned assumptions as well as with the constellation and epistemic approaches to probabilistic argumentation and bipolar argumentation

Strong Refinements for Hard Problems in Argumentation Dynamics

Peer reviewe