Complexity in Value-Based Argument Systems

We consider a number of decision problems formulated in value-based argumentation frameworks (VAFs), a development of Dung’s argument systems in which arguments have associated abstract values which are considered relative to the orderings induced by the opinions of specific audiences. In the context of a single fixed audience, it is known that those decision questions which are typically computationally hard in the standard setting admit efficient solution methods in the value-based setting. In this paper we show that, in spite of this positive property, there still remain a number of natural questions that arise solely in value-based schemes for which there are unlikely to be efficient decision processes.

[1]  Ch. Perelman,et al.  Justice, law, and argument , 1980 .

[2]  Mihalis Yannakakis,et al.  The complexity of facets (and some facets of complexity) , 1982, STOC '82.

[3]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Yannis Dimopoulos,et al.  Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories , 1996 .

[5]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument , 1997 .

[7]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Preferred Arguments are Harder to Compute than Stable Extension , 1999, IJCAI.

[8]  Dirk Vermeir,et al.  Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks , 1999, ICAIL '99.

[9]  Henry Prakken,et al.  On Dialogue Systems with Speech Acts, Arguments, and Counterarguments , 2000, JELIA.

[10]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Credulous and Sceptical Argument Games for Preferred Semantics , 2000, JELIA.

[11]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Semi-qualitative Reasoning about Distances: A Preliminary Report , 2000, JELIA.

[12]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Finding Admissible and Preferred Arguments Can be Very Hard , 2000, KR.

[13]  George C. Christie.  The Notion of an Ideal Audience in Legal Argument , 2000 .

[14]  L. Liverpool.  Two Party Immediate Response Disputes: Properties and Efficiency , 2001 .

[15]  C. Reed.  Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue Between Parties With Different Values , 2001 .

[16]  J. Searle.  Rationality in Action , 2001 .

[17]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Coherence in finite argument systems , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[18]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Representation of Case Law as an Argumentation Framework , 2002 .

[19]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  On the computational complexity of assumption-based argumentation for default reasoning , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[21]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments , 2002, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[22]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Identifying Audience Preferences in Legal and Social Domains , 2004, DEXA.