We propose a novel ranking-based semantics for Dung-style argumentation frameworks with the help of conditional logics. Using an intuitive translation for an argumentation framework to generate conditionals, we can apply nonmonotonic inference systems to generate a ranking on possible worlds. With this ranking we construct a ranking for our arguments. With a small extension to this ranking-based semantics we already satisfy some desirable properties for a ranking over arguments.
University of Koblenz（科布伦茨大学）；TU Dortmund（多特蒙德工业大学）
We introduce stratified labelings as a novel semantical approach to abstract argumentation frameworks. Compared to standard labelings, stratified labelings provide a more fine-grained assessment of the controversiality of arguments using ranks instead of the usual labels in, out, and undecided. We relate the framework of stratified labelings to conditional logic and, in particular, to the System Z ranking functions.
We propose and investigate a simple ranking-measure-based extension semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks based on their generic instantiation by default knowledge bases and the ranking construction semantics for default reasoning. In this context, we consider the path from structured to logical to shallow semantic instantiations. The resulting well-justified JZ-extension semantics diverges from more traditional approaches.
La Sapienza, University of Rome（罗马大学）；Vienna University of Technology（维也纳工业大学）
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.
We revisit the notion of initial sets by Xu and Cayrol, i.e., non-empty minimal admissible sets in abstract argumentation frameworks. Initial sets are a simple concept for analysing conflicts in an abstract argumentation framework and to explain why certain arguments can be accepted. We contribute with new insights on the structure of initial sets and devise a simple non-deterministic construction principle for any admissible set, based on iterative selection of initial sets of the original framework and its induced reducts. In particular, we characterise many existing admissibility-based sema…
Gradual semantics with abstract argumentation provide each argument with a score reflecting its acceptability, i.e. how "much" it is attacked by other arguments. Many different gradual semantics have been proposed in the literature, each following different principles and producing different argument rankings. A sub-class of such semantics, the so-called weighted semantics, takes, in addition to the graph structure, an initial set of weights over the arguments as input, with these weights affecting the resultant argument ranking. In this work, we consider the inverse problem over such weighted…
The notion of stability in a structured argumentation setup characterizes situations where the acceptance status associated with a given literal will not be impacted by any future evolution of this setup. In this paper, we abstract away from the logical structure of arguments, and we transpose this notion of stability to the context of Dungean argumentation frameworks. In particular, we show how this problem can be translated into reasoning with Argument-Incomplete AFs. Then we provide preliminary complexity results for stability under four prominent semantics, in the case of both credulous an…
In this paper, we present a preliminary work on an approach to fill the gap between logic-based argumentation and the numerous approaches to tackle the dynamics of abstract argumentation frameworks. Our idea is that, even when arguments and attacks are defined by means of a logical belief base, there may be some uncertainty about how accurate is the content of an argument, and so the presence (or absence) of attacks concerning it. We use enthymemes to illustrate this notion of uncertainty of arguments and attacks. Indeed, as argued in the literature, real arguments are often enthymemes instead…
Sun Yat-sen University（中山大学）；University of Amsterdam（阿姆斯特丹大学）
An abstract argumentation framework can be used to model the argumentative stance of an agent at a high level of abstraction, by indicating for every pair of arguments that is being considered in a debate whether the first attacks the second. When modelling a group of agents engaged in a debate, we may wish to aggregate their individual argumentation frameworks to obtain a single such framework that reflects the consensus of the group. Even when agents disagree on many details, there may well be high-level agreement on important semantic properties, such as the acceptability of a given argumen…
In this paper, we study the effect of preferences in abstract argumentation under a claim-centric perspective. Recent work has revealed that semantical and computational properties can change when reasoning is performed on claim-level rather than on the argument-level, while under certain natural restrictions (arguments with the same claims have the same outgoing attacks) these properties are conserved. We now investigate these effects when, in addition, preferences have to be taken into account and consider four prominent reductions to handle preferences between arguments. As we shall see, th…
The act of persuasion, a key component in rhetoric argumentation, may be viewed as a dynamics modifier. We extend Dung's frameworks with acts of persuasion among agents, and consider interactions among attack, persuasion and defence that have been largely unheeded so far. We characterise basic notions of admissibilities in this framework, and show a way of enriching them through, effectively, CTL (computation tree logic) encoding, which also permits importation of the theoretical results known to the logic into our argumentation frameworks. Our aim is to complement the growing interest in coor…
University of Groningen（格罗宁根大学）；King's College London（伦敦国王学院）
The paper develops a formal theory of the degree of justification of arguments, which relies solely on the structure of an argumentation framework, and which can be successfully interfaced with approaches to instantiated argumentation. The theory is developed in three steps. First, the paper introduces a graded generalization of the two key notions underpinning Dung's semantics: self-defense and conflict-freeness. This leads to a natural generalization of Dung's semantics, whereby standard extensions are weakened or strengthened depending on the level of self-defense and conflict-freeness they…
We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools. This enables the formal analysis and verification of meta-theoretical properties as well as the flexible generation of extensions and labellings with respect to well-known argumentation semantics.
Federal University of Technology - Paraná (UTFPR)（巴拉那联邦理工大学）；Umeå University（于默奥大学）
Some abstract argumentation approaches consider that arguments have a degree of uncertainty, which impacts on the degree of uncertainty of the extensions obtained from a abstract argumentation framework (AAF) under a semantics. In these approaches, both the uncertainty of the arguments and of the extensions are modeled by means of precise probability values. However, in many real life situations the exact probabilities values are unknown and sometimes there is a need for aggregating the probability values of different sources. In this paper, we tackle the problem of calculating the degree of u…
In this paper, we address the problem of change in an abstract argumentation system. We focus on a particular change: the addition of a new argument which interacts with previous arguments. We study the impact of such an addition on the outcome of the argumentation system, more particularly on the set of its extensions. Several properties for this change operation are defined by comparing the new set of extensions to the initial one, these properties are called structural when the comparisons are based on set-cardinality or set-inclusion relations. Several other properties are proposed where c…
Institute of Information Systems（信息系统研究所）；Vienna University of Technology（维也纳工业大学）
Dung's famous abstract argumentation frameworks represent the core formalism for many problems and applications in the field of argumentation which significantly evolved within the last decade. Recent work in the field has thus focused on implementations for these frameworks, whereby one of the main approaches is to use Answer-Set Programming (ASP). While some of the argumentation semantics can be nicely expressed within the ASP language, others required rather cumbersome encoding techniques. Recent advances in ASP systems, in particular, the metasp optimization frontend for the ASP-package gr…
Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are a powerful generalisation of Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks. In this paper we present an answer set programming based software system, called DIAMOND (DIAlectical MOdels eNcoDing). It translates ADFs into answer set programs whose stable models correspond to models of the ADF with respect to several semantics (i.e. admissible, complete, stable, grounded).
ConArg is a Constraint Programming-based tool that can be used to model and solve different problems related to Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). To implement this tool we have used JaCoP, a Java library that provides the user with a Finite Domain Constraint Programming paradigm. ConArg is able to randomly generate networks with small-world properties in order to find conflict-free, admissible, complete, stable grounded, preferred, semi-stable, stage and ideal extensions on such interaction graphs. We present the main features of ConArg and we report the performance in time, showing als…
An extension of an abstract argumentation framework, called collective argumentation, is introduced in which the attack relation is defined directly among sets of arguments. The extension turns out to be suitable, in particular, for representing semantics of disjunctive logic programs. Two special kinds of collective argumentation are considered in which the opponents can share their arguments.
Cycles of attacking arguments pose non-trivial issues in Dung style argumentation theory, apparent behavioural difference between odd and even length cycles being a notable one. While a few methods were proposed for treating them, to - in particular - enable selection of acceptable arguments in an odd-length cycle when Dung semantics could select none, so far the issues have been observed from a purely argument-graph-theoretic perspective. Per contra, we consider argument graphs together with a certain lattice like semantic structure over arguments e.g. ontology. As we show, the semantic-argum…
Dung's abstract argumentation framework consists of a set of interacting arguments and a series of semantics for evaluating them. Those semantics partition the powerset of the set of arguments into two classes: extensions and non-extensions. In order to reason with a specific semantics, one needs to take a credulous or skeptical approach, i.e. an argument is eventually accepted, if it is accepted in one or all extensions, respectively. In our previous work \cite{ref-pu2015counting}, we have proposed a novel semantics, called \emph{counting semantics}, which allows for a more fine-grained asses…
University of Aberdeen（阿伯丁大学）；University of Huddersfield（哈德斯菲尔德大学）；University of Brescia（布雷西亚大学）
Abstract argumentation framework (\AFname) is a unifying framework able to encompass a variety of nonmonotonic reasoning approaches, logic programming and computational argumentation. Yet, efficient approaches for most of the decision and enumeration problems associated to \AFname s are missing, thus potentially limiting the efficacy of argumentation-based approaches in real domains. In this paper, we present an algorithm for enumerating the preferred extensions of abstract argumentation frameworks which exploits parallel computation. To this purpose, the SCC-recursive semantics definition sch…
Abstract argumentation has emerged as a method for non-monotonic reasoning that has gained popularity in the symbolic artificial intelligence community. In the literature, the different approaches to abstract argumentation that were refined over the years are typically evaluated from a formal logics perspective; an analysis that is based on models of economically rational decision-making does not exist. In this paper, we work towards addressing this issue by analyzing abstract argumentation from the perspective of the rational man paradigm in microeconomic theory. To assess under which conditi…
Computer Science Institute Leipzig University（莱比锡大学计算机科学研究所）
We analyse the expressiveness of the two-valued semantics of abstract argumentation frameworks, normal logic programs and abstract dialectical frameworks. By expressiveness we mean the ability to encode a desired set of two-valued interpretations over a given propositional signature using only atoms from that signature. While the computational complexity of the two-valued model existence problem for all these languages is (almost) the same, we show that the languages form a neat hierarchy with respect to their expressiveness.
University of Nebraska Omaha（内布拉斯加大学奥马哈分校）；IRIT（图卢兹计算机科学研究所）；Université de Toulouse（图卢兹大学）；CNRS（法国国家科学研究中心）
In this work, we show that both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks can be interpreted in terms of Nelson's constructive logic N4. We do so by formalizing, in this logic, two principles that we call non-contradictory inference and strengthened closed world assumption: the first states that no belief can be held based on contradictory evidence while the latter forces both unknown and contradictory evidence to be regarded as false. Using these principles, both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks are translated into constructive logic in a modular way and u…
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 f…
TU Dresden（德累斯顿工业大学）；TU Wien（维也纳工业大学）；University of Potsdam（波茨坦大学）
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 extension…
Dung's abstract argumentation theory is a widely used formalism to model conflicting information and to draw conclusions in such situations. Hereby, the knowledge is represented by so-called argumentation frameworks (AFs) and the reasoning is done via semantics extracting acceptable sets. All reasonable semantics are based on the notion of conflict-freeness which means that arguments are only jointly acceptable when they are not linked within the AF. In this paper, we study the question which information on top of conflict-free sets is needed to compute extensions of a semantics at hand. We in…
Intelligent Systems Department（智能系统部）；Computer Science Institute（计算机科学研究所）；Leipzig University（莱比锡大学）
MatrixX is a solver for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. Offensive and defensive properties of an Argumentation Framework are notated in a matrix style. Rows and columns of this matrix are systematically reduced by the solver. This procedure is implemented through the use of hash maps in order to accelerate calculation time. MatrixX works for stable and complete semantics and was designed for the ICCMA 2021 competition.
Department of Computer and Information Science (IDA), Linköping University, Sweden（链接öping大学计算机与信息科学系（IDA））；University of Potsdam, Germany & University of Artois, CNRS, UMR8188 (CRIL), France（波茨坦大学 & 阿尔托伊斯大学、法国CNRS UMR8188（CRIL））；Data Science Group, Heinz Nixdorf Institute, Paderborn University, Germany（帕德博恩大学数据科学小组、海因茨·尼克斯多夫研究所）
We present a new and compelling approach to the efficient solution of important computational problems that arise in the context of abstract argumentation. Our approach makes known algorithms defined for restricted fragments generally applicable, at a computational cost that scales with the distance from the fragment. Thus, in a certain sense, we gradually augment tractable fragments. Surprisingly, it turns out that some tractable fragments admit such an augmentation and that others do not. More specifically, we show that the problems of credulous and skeptical acceptance are fixed-parameter t…
An \textit{abstract argumentation framework} ({\sc af} for short) is a directed graph $(A,R)$ where $A$ is a set of \textit{abstract arguments} and $R\subseteq A \times A$ is the \textit{attack} relation. Let $H=(A,R)$ be an {\sc af}, $S \subseteq A$ be a set of arguments and $S^+ = \{y \mid \exists x\in S \text{ with }(x,y)\in R\}$. Then, $S$ is a \textit{stable extension} in $H$ if and only if $S^+ = A\setminus S$. In this paper, we present a thorough, formal validation of a known backtracking algorithm for listing all stable extensions in a given {\sc af}.
LAMSADE, CNRS, Paris, France（法国国家科学研究中心LAMSADE实验室）；Department of Theoretical Computer Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic（马萨里克大学理论计算机科学系）；Institute of Information Systems, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria（维也纳工业大学信息系统研究所）
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 tha…
Universität Leipzig（莱比锡大学）；TU Dresden（德累斯顿工业大学）；TU Wien（维也纳工业大学）
Powerful formalisms for abstract argumentation have been proposed, among them abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) that allow for a succinct and flexible specification of the relationship between arguments, and the GRAPPA framework which allows argumentation scenarios to be represented as arbitrary edge-labelled graphs. The complexity of ADFs and GRAPPA is located beyond NP and ranges up to the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. The combined complexity of Answer Set Programming (ASP) exactly matches this complexity when programs are restricted to predicates of bounded arity. In this pa…
The pyglaf reasoner takes advantage of circumscription to solve computational problems of abstract argumentation frameworks. In fact, many of these problems are reduced to circumscription by means of linear encodings, and a few others are solved by means of a sequence of calls to an oracle for circumscription. Within pyglaf, Python is used to build the encodings and to control the execution of the external circumscription solver, which extends the SAT solver glucose and implements algorithms taking advantage of unsatisfiable core analysis and incremental computation.
Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have been introduced as a formalism for modeling and evaluating argumentation allowing general logical satisfaction conditions. Different criteria used to settle the acceptance of arguments are called semantics. Semantics of ADFs have so far mainly been defined based on the concept of admissibility. However, the notion of strongly admissible semantics studied for abstract argumentation frameworks has not yet been introduced for ADFs. In the current work we present the concept of strong admissibility of interpretations for ADFs. Further, we show that stron…
Within the area of computational models of argumentation, the instantiation-based approach is gaining more and more attention, not at least because meaningful input for Dung's abstract frameworks is provided in that way. In a nutshell, the aim of instantiation-based argumentation is to form, from a given knowledge base, a set of arguments and to identify the conflicts between them. The resulting network is then evaluated by means of extension-based semantics on an abstract level, i.e. on the resulting graph. While several systems are nowadays available for the latter step, the automation of th…
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics（南京航空航天大学）；Nanjing Audit University（南京审计大学）
After a few decades of development, computational argumentation has become one of the active realms in AI. This paper considers extension-based concrete and abstract semantics of argumentation. For concrete ones, based on Grossi and Modgil's recent work, this paper considers some issues on graded extension-based semantics of abstract argumentation framework (AAF, for short). First, an alternative fundamental lemma is given, which generalizes the corresponding result due to Grossi and Modgil by relaxing the constraint on parameters. This lemma provides a new sufficient condition for preserving …
After Dung's founding work in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks there has been a growing interest in extending the Dung's semantics in order to describe more complex or real life situations. Several of these approaches take the direction of weighted or probabilistic extensions. One of the most prominent probabilistic approaches is that of constellation Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation Frameworks from Li~et~al. In this paper, we present a normal form for constellation probabilistic abstract argumentation frameworks. Furthermore, we present a transformation from general constellation probabi…
Translations between different nonmonotonic formalisms always have been an important topic in the field, in particular to understand the knowledge-representation capabilities those formalisms offer. We provide such an investigation in terms of different semantics proposed for abstract argumentation frameworks, a nonmonotonic yet simple formalism which received increasing interest within the last decade. Although the properties of these different semantics are nowadays well understood, there are no explicit results about intertranslatability. We provide such translations wrt. different properti…
Realizability for knowledge representation formalisms studies the following question: given a semantics and a set of interpretations, is there a knowledge base whose semantics coincides exactly with the given interpretation set? We introduce a general framework for analyzing realizability in abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) and various of its subclasses. In particular, the framework applies to Dung argumentation frameworks, SETAFs by Nielsen and Parsons, and bipolar ADFs. We present a uniform characterization method for the admissible, complete, preferred and model/stable semantics. We e…
University of Warwick（华威大学）；University of Toulouse（图卢兹大学）
Value-based argumentation enhances a classical abstract argumentation graph - in which arguments are modelled as nodes connected by directed arrows called attacks - with labels on arguments, called values, and an ordering on values, called audience, to provide a more fine-grained justification of the attack relation. With more than one agent facing such an argumentation problem, agents may differ in their ranking of values. When needing to reach a collective view, such agents face a dilemma between two equally justifiable approaches: aggregating their views at the level of values, or aggregati…
Recently there has been an increasing interest in frameworks extending Dung's abstract Argumentation Framework (AF). Popular extensions include bipolar AFs and AFs with recursive attacks and necessary supports. Although the relationships between AF semantics and Partial Stable Models (PSMs) of logic programs has been deeply investigated, this is not the case for more general frameworks extending AF. In this paper we explore the relationships between AF-based frameworks and PSMs. We show that every AF-based framework $Δ$ can be translated into a logic program $P_Δ$ so that the extensions prescr…
Università degli Studi di Perugia（佩鲁贾大学）；Gran Sasso Science Institute（格兰萨索科学研究所）
We study invariant local expansion operators for conflict-free and admissible sets in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). Such operators are directly applied on AFs, and are invariant with respect to a chosen "semantics" (that is w.r.t. each of the conflict free/admissible set of arguments). Accordingly, we derive a definition of robustness for AFs in terms of the number of times such operators can be applied without producing any change in the chosen semantics.
University of Huddersfield（哈德斯菲尔德大学）；Cardiff University（卡迪夫大学）；Università degli Studi di Brescia（布雷西亚大学）
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 car…
TU Dresden（德累斯顿工业大学）；TU Wien（维也纳工业大学）；Università di Genova（热那亚大学）
Argumentation is a major topic in the study of Artificial Intelligence. Since the first edition in 2015, advancements in solving (abstract) argumentation frameworks are assessed in competition events, similar to other closely related problem solving technologies. In this paper, we report about the design and results of the Second International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation, which has been jointly organized by TU Dresden (Germany), TU Wien (Austria), and the University of Genova (Italy), in affiliation with the 2017 International Workshop on Theory and Applications of For…
F-systems are digraphs that enable to model sentences that predicate the falsity of other sentences. Paradoxes like the Liar and Yablo's can be analyzed with that tool to find graph-theoretic patterns. In this paper we present the F-systems model abstracting from all the features of the language in which the represented sentences are expressed. All that is assumed is the existence of sentences and the binary relation '... affirms the falsity of ...' among them. The possible existence of non-referential sentences is also considered. To model the sets of all the sentences that can jointly be val…
