Järvisalo, Matti

English

Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto

Järvisalo / SAT for Argumentation 1SAT for ArgumentationMatti JÄRVISALOHelsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT, Department of Computer Science,University of Helsinki, Finland1. IntroductionThe study of computational models of argumentation is a vibrant research area in artifi-cial intelligence [1]. Among the proposed computational models of argumentation, con-siderable progress has been recently made in developing automated reasoning techniquesfor abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) [2]. Various systems have been recentlyimplemented for reasoning over AFs [3], further incentivized by the ICCMA series ofinternational competitions on computational models of argumentation [4,5], focusing onAF reasoning tasks such as credulous and skeptical reasoning of the acceptance of argu-ments, and extension enumeration.AF reasoning tasks can be represented in a natural way as Boolean combinationsof logical constraints via developing propositional (Boolean satisfiability, SAT) encod-ings [6]. As witnessed by the results of the ICCMA competitions, SAT-based approachesbased on (potentially iterative) invocations of SAT solvers on propositional encodingscurrently form a central computational approach to reasoning over argumentation frame-works, complementing and being very competitive when compared to specialized al-gorithms developed for AF reasoning. Indeed, the state-of-the-art SAT solver technol-ogy readily available today offers the core NP decision engines employed in many ofthe current state-of-the-art argumentation reasoning systems focusing on AF reasoningproblems [7,8,9,10,11,12,13].The use of SAT solvers is not restricted to problem domains in NP. SAT solversallow for solving hard decision problems presumably well beyond NP via harnessinginstantiations of the general SAT-based counterexample-guided abstraction refinement(CEGAR) approach [14], based on iterative and incremental applications of SAT solvers,solving a sequence of abstractions and ruling out non-solutions through counterexample-based refinements to the abstraction towards finding one or more solutions to the actualproblem instance at hand. As complexity-theoretically very challenging problems areabundant in AF reasoning—various types of decision and optimization problems underdifferent AF semantics exhibiting completeness for different levels of the polynomialhierarchy—developing CEGAR-type SAT-based procedures for AF reasoning tasks is anintuitive choice. Furthermore, there are further connections between AF semantics anditerative SAT procedures; computing the ideal extension essentially corresponds to com-puting the backbone of the propositional formula encoding the admissible sets of a givenAF [15,16], which gives promise of developing new backbone algorithms particularlysuited for argumentation instances [17].2 Järvisalo / SAT for ArgumentationGoing beyond the problems focused on in the ICCMA competitions, SAT-based al-gorithms have also been developed problems related to AF dynamics, dealing with e.g.adjusting (or revising) a given AF to support new knowledge represented as extensionsthe AF should support [18,19,20] or synthesizing a semantically best AF structure torepresent a given set of extensions [21]. The study of AF dynamics gives rise to op-timization problems, inviting the employment of Boolean optimization solvers such asmaximum satisfiability (MaxSAT) solvers, the optimization counterpart of SAT—relyingagain heavily on SAT solvers. Furthermore, some AF semantics which yield polynomial-time static reasoning problems turn into NP-hard optimization problems when consid-ering AF dynamics; for example, extension enforcement [22,23,24] under grounded se-mantics requires non-trivial SAT encodings [25].Beyond abstract argumentation, the SAT-based techniques developed for AF reason-ing have been shown to be applicable also for reasoning about acceptance and enumer-ation of extensions in structured argumentation formalisms. Especially in the context ofassumption-based argumentation (ABA) [26,27,28], a translation-based approach con-sisting of mapping the structured reasoning task first to the AF level and then employingvariants of AF reasoning techniques has recently been shown to provide a complemen-tary approach to native algorithms for ABA reasoning [29].The development of SAT-based procedures for AF reasoning, and extensions of AFssuch as abstract dialectic frameworks (ADFs) [30], poses interesting research challenges.Understanding the complexity of AF reasoning tasks with respect to different parame-terizations (AF semantics, reasoning modes, and other problem-specific parameters) isessential for understanding what type of SAT-based approaches may be suitable. Fromencodings and procedures to implementation, the choice of the SAT and MaxSAT solverscan have a noticeable impact on scalability and efficiency. The incremental APIs offeredby some of the central SAT solvers also play a key role in implementing CEGAR-styleiterative approaches. The use of MaxSAT solvers in CEGAR has been less studied, andposes more challenges, e.g. in terms of incrementality. All in all, developing further un-derstanding on the best-suited ways of employing SAT solvers for reasoning over compu-tational models of argumentation holds great potential for pushing and extending furtherthe current state of the art in computational approaches for argumentation.AcknowledgementsThe author is financially supported by Academy of Finland (grants 276412 and 312662).References[1] T. Bench-Capon and P. Dunne, “Argumentation in artificial intelligence,” Artif. Intell., vol. 171, no. 10-15, pp. 619–641, 2007.[2] P. Dung, “On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logicprogramming and n-person games,” Artif. Intell., vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 321–358, 1995.[3] G. Charwat, W. Dvorák, S. A. Gaggl, J. P. Wallner, and S. Woltran, “Methods for solving reasoningproblems in abstract argumentation - A survey,” Artif. Intell., vol. 220, pp. 28–63, 2015.[4] M. Thimm, S. Villata, F. Cerutti, N. Oren, H. Strass, and M. Vallati, “Summary report of the first in-ternational competition on computational models of argumentation,” AI Mag., vol. 37, no. 1, p. 102,2016.[5] M. Thimm and S. Villata, “The first international competition on computational models of argumenta-tion: Results and analysis,” Artif. Intell., vol. 252, pp. 267–294, 2017.Järvisalo / SAT for Argumentation 3[6] P. Besnard and S. Doutre, “Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments,” in Proc. NMR, pp. 59–64,2004.[7] F. Cerutti, P. E. Dunne, M. Giacomin, and M. Vallati, “Computing preferred extensions in abstractargumentation: A SAT-based approach,” in TAFA 2013 Revised Selected Papers, vol. 8306 of LNCS,pp. 176–193, 2014.[8] F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, and M. Vallati, “ArgSemSAT: Solving argumentation problems using SAT,” inProc. COMMA, vol. 266 of FAIA, pp. 455–456, 2014.[9] W. Dvořák, M. Järvisalo, J. Wallner, and S. Woltran, “Complexity-sensitive decision procedures forabstract argumentation,” Artif. Intell., vol. 206, pp. 53–78, 2014.[10] J. Lagniez, E. Lonca, and J. Mailly, “Coquiaas: A constraint-based quick abstract argumentation solver,”in Proc. ICTAI, pp. 928–935, IEEE Computer Society, 2015.[11] F. Cerutti, M. Vallati, and M. Giacomin, “An efficient java-based solver for abstract argumentationframeworks: jargsemsat,” Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 1–26, 2017.[12] M. Alviano, “The pyglaf argumentation reasoner,” in Technical Communications of ICLP 2017, vol. 58of OASICS, pp. 2:1–2:3, Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2018.[13] F. Pu, G. Luo, and Z. Jiang, “Encoding argumentation semantics by boolean algebra,” IEICE Transac-tions, vol. 100-D, no. 4, pp. 838–848, 2017.[14] E. M. Clarke, A. Gupta, and O. Strichman, “SAT-based counterexample-guided abstraction refinement,”IEEE T-CAD, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 1113–1123, 2004.[15] P. E. Dunne, W. Dvorák, and S. Woltran, “Parametric properties of ideal semantics,” Artificial Intelli-gence, vol. 202, pp. 1–28, 2013.[16] J. P. Wallner, G. Weissenbacher, and S. Woltran, “Advanced SAT techniques for abstract argumentation,”in Proc. CLIMA, vol. 8143 of LNCS, pp. 138–154, Springer, 2013.[17] A. Previti and M. Järvisalo, “A preference-based approach to backbone computation with application toargumentation,” in Proc. SAC, pp. 896–902, ACM, 2018.[18] A. Niskanen, J. Wallner, and M. Järvisalo, “Optimal status enforcement in abstract argumentation,” inProc. IJCAI, pp. 1216–1222, AAAI Press, 2016.[19] J. P. Wallner, A. Niskanen, and M. Järvisalo, “Complexity results and algorithms for extension enforce-ment in abstract argumentation,” J. Artif. Intell. Res., vol. 60, pp. 1–40, 2017.[20] T. Lehtonen, A. Niskanen, and M. Järvisalo, “SAT-based approaches to adjusting, repairing, and com-puting largest extensions of argumentation frameworks,” in Proc. COMMA, FAIA, IOS Press, 2018.[21] A. Niskanen, J. Wallner, and M. Järvisalo, “Synthesizing argumentation frameworks from examples,” inProc. ECAI, vol. 285 of FAIA, pp. 551–559, IOS Press, 2016.[22] R. Baumann, “What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation,” inProc. ECAI, vol. 242 of FAIA, pp. 127–132, 2012.[23] P. Bisquert, C. Cayrol, F. D. de Saint-Cyr, and M. Lagasquie-Schiex, “Enforcement in argumentation isa kind of update,” in Proc. SUM, vol. 8078 of LNCS, pp. 30–43, Springer, 2013.[24] S. Coste-Marquis, S. Konieczny, J. Mailly, and P. Marquis, “Extension enforcement in abstract argu-mentation as an optimization problem,” in Proc. IJCAI, pp. 2876–2882, AAAI Press, 2015.[25] A. Niskanen, J. P. Wallner, and M. Järvisalo, “Extension enforcement under grounded semantics inabstract argumentation,” in Proc. KR, AAAI Press, 2018.[26] A. Bondarenko, P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski, and F. Toni, “An abstract, argumentation-theoretic ap-proach to default reasoning,” Artif. Intell., vol. 93, pp. 63–101, 1997.[27] P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski, and F. Toni, “Assumption-based argumentation,” in Argumentation inArtificial Intelligence (I. Rahwan and G. R. Simari, eds.), pp. 25–44, Springer, 2009.[28] F. Toni, “A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation,” Argument & Computation, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 89–117, 2014.[29] T. Lehtonen, J. P. Wallner, and M. Järvisalo, “From structured to abstract argumentation: Assumption-based acceptance via AF reasoning,” in Proc. ECSQARU, vol. 10369 of LNCS, pp. 57–68, Springer,2017.[30] T. Linsbichler, M. Maratea, A. Niskanen, J. P. Wallner, and S. Woltran, “Novel algorithms for abstractdialectical frameworks based on complexity analysis of subclasses and SAT solving,” in Proc. IJCAI,pp. 1905–1911, ijcai.org, 2018.

SAT for argumentation

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/10138/299837/1/jarvisalo.pdf

SAT for argumentation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto