Synthesizing Argumentation Frameworks from Examples

Peer reviewe

Predictive Models and Abstract Argumentation: the case of High-Complexity Semantics

In this paper we describe how predictive models can be positively exploited in abstract argumentation. In particular, we present two main sets of results. On one side, we show that predictive models are effective for performing algorithm selection in order to determine which approach is better to enumerate the preferred extensions of a given argumentation framework. On the other side, we show that predictive models predict significant aspects of the solution to the preferred extensions enumeration problem. By exploiting an extensive set of argumentation framework features— i.e., values that summarise a potentially important property of a framework—the proposed approach is able to provide an accurate prediction about which algorithm would be faster on a given problem instance, as well as of the structure of the solution, where the complete knowledge of such structure would require a computationally hard problem to be solved. Improving the ability of existing argumentation-based systems to support human sense-making and decision processes is just one of the possible exploitations of such knowledge obtained in an inexpensive way

On the Impact of Configuration on Abstract Argumentation Automated Reasoning

In this paper we consider the impact of configuration of abstract argumentation reasoners both when using a single solver and choosing combinations of framework representation–solver options; and also when composing portfolios of algorithms. To exemplify the impact of the framework–solver configuration we consider one of the most configurable solvers, namely ArgSemSAT—runner-up of the last competition on computational models of argumentation (ICCMA-15)—for enumerating preferred extensions. We discuss how to configure the representation of the argumentation framework in the input file and show how this coupled framework–solver configuration can have a remarkable impact on performance. As to the impact of configuring differently structured portfolios of abstract argumentation solvers, we consider the solvers submitted to ICCMA-15, which provided the community with a heterogeneous panorama of approaches for handling abstract argumentation frameworks. A superficial reading of the results of ICCMA-15 is that reduction-based systems (either SAT-based or ASP-based) are always the most efficient. Our investigation, concerning the enumeration of stable and preferred extensions, shows that this is not true in full generality and suggests the areas where the relatively under-developed non reduction-based systems should focus more to improve their performance. Moreover, it also highlights that the state-of-the-art solvers are very complementary and can be successfully combined in portfolios

On the effectiveness of automated configuration in abstract argumentation reasoning

In this paper we investigate the impact of automated configuration techniques on the ArgSemSAT solver—runner-up of the ICCMA 2015—for solving the enumeration of preferred extensions. Moreover, we introduce a fully automated method for varying how argumentation frameworks are represented in the input file, and evaluate how the joint configuration of frameworks and ArgSemSAT parameters can have a remarkable impact on performance. Our findings suggest that automated configuration techniques lead to improved performances in argumentation solvers, an important message for participants to the forthcoming competition