Enforcement in Abstract Argumentation via Boolean Optimization

Computational aspects of argumentation are a central research topic of modern artificial intelligence. A core formal model for argumentation, where the inner structure of arguments is abstracted away, was provided by Dung in the form of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). AFs are syntactically directed graphs with the nodes representing arguments and edges representing attacks between them. Given the AF, sets of jointly acceptable arguments or extensions are defined via different semantics. The computational complexity and algorithmic solutions to so-called static problems, such as the enumeration of extensions, is a well-studied topic. Since argumentation is a dynamic process, understanding the dynamic aspects of AFs is also important. However, computational aspects of dynamic problems have not been studied thoroughly. This work concentrates on different forms of enforcement, which is a core dynamic problem in the area of abstract argumentation. In this case, given an AF, one wants to modify it by adding and removing attacks in a way that a given set of arguments becomes an extension (extension enforcement) or that given arguments are credulously or skeptically accepted (status enforcement). In this thesis, the enforcement problem is viewed as a constrained optimization task where the change to the attack structure is minimized. The computational complexity of the extension and status enforcement problems is analyzed, showing that they are in the general case NP-hard optimization problems. Motivated by this, algorithms are presented based on the Boolean optimization paradigm of maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT) for the NP-complete variants, and counterexample-guided abstraction refinement (CEGAR) procedures, where an interplay between MaxSAT and Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solvers is utilized, for problems beyond NP. The algorithms are implemented in the open source software system Pakota, which is empirically evaluated on randomly generated enforcement instances

Synthesizing Argumentation Frameworks from Examples

Peer reviewe

Coalitions of Arguments: An Approach with Constraint Programming

The aggregation of generic items into coalitions leads to the creation of sets of homogenous entities. In this paper we accomplish this for an input set of arguments, and the result is a partition according to distinct lines of thought, i.e., groups of "coherent" ideas. We extend Dung\u27s Argumentation Framework (AF) in order to deal with coalitions of arguments. The initial set of arguments is partitioned into not-intersected subsets. All the found coalitions show the same property inherited by Dung, e.g., all the coalitions in the partition are admissible (or conflict-free, complete, stable): they are generated according to Dung\u27s principles. Each of these coalitions can be assigned to a different agent. We use Soft Constraint Programming as a formal approach to model and solve such partitions in weighted AFs: semiring algebraic structures can be used to model different optimization criteria for the obtained coalitions. Moreover, we implement and solve the presented problem with JaCoP, a Java constraint solver, and we test the code over a small-world network

Solving Set Optimization Problems by Cardinality Optimization with an Application to Argumentation

Optimization—minimization or maximization—in the lattice of subsets is a frequent operation in Artificial Intelligence tasks. Examples are subset-minimal model-based diagnosis, nonmonotonic reasoning by means of circumscription, or preferred extensions in abstract argumentation. Finding the optimum among many admissible solutions is often harder than finding admissible solutions with respect to both computational complexity and methodology. This paper addresses the former issue by means of an effective method for finding subset-optimal solutions. It is based on the relationship between cardinality-optimal and subset-optimal solutions, and the fact that many logic-based declarative programming systems provide constructs for finding cardinality-optimal solutions, for example maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT) or weak constraints in Answer Set Programming (ASP). Clearly each cardinality-optimal solution is also a subset-optimal one, and if the language also allows for the addition of particular restricting constructs (both MaxSAT and ASP do) then all subset-optimal solutions can be found by an iterative computation of cardinality-optimal solutions. As a showcase, the computation of preferred extensions of abstract argumentation frameworks using the proposed method is studied

Complexity Results and Algorithms for Extension Enforcement in Abstract Argumentation

Peer reviewe