Complexity of Abstract Argumentation under a Claim-Centric View

Abstract argumentation frameworks have been introduced by Dung as part of an argumentation process, where arguments and conflicts are derived from a given knowledge base. It is solely this relation between arguments that is then used in order to identify acceptable sets of arguments. A final step concerns the acceptance status of particular statements by reviewing the actual contents of the acceptable arguments. Complexity analysis of abstract argumentation so far has neglected this final step and is concerned with argument names instead of their contents, i.e. their claims. As we outline in this paper, this is not only a slight deviation but can lead to different complexity results. We, therefore, give a comprehensive complexity analysis of abstract argumentation under a claim-centric view and analyse the four main decision problems under seven popular semantics. In addition, we also address the complexity of common sub-classes and introduce novel parameterisations – which exploit the nature of claims explicitly – along with fixed-parameter tractability results.

[1]  Michael R. Fellows,et al.  Parameterized Complexity , 1998 .

[2]  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..

[3]  Martin Caminada,et al.  On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics , 2015, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[4]  Hans L. Bodlaender.  A linear time algorithm for finding tree-decompositions of small treewidth , 1993, STOC '93.

[5]  Henry Prakken,et al.  The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial , 2014, Argument Comput..

[6]  Bruno Courcelle,et al.  Graph Rewriting: An Algebraic and Logic Approach , 1991, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics.

[7]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  An introduction to argumentation semantics , 2011, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[8]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logics for Defeasible Argumentation , 2001 .

[9]  Paul D. Seymour,et al.  Graph Minors. II. Algorithmic Aspects of Tree-Width , 1986, J. Algorithms.

[10]  Wolfgang Dvorák.  Computational Aspects of Abstract Argumentation , 2012 .

[11]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Abstract Argumentation via Monadic Second Order Logic , 2012, SUM.

[12]  Wolfgang Dvorák,et al.  Computational Problems in Formal Argumentation and their Complexity , 2017, FLAP.

[13]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Complete Extensions in Argumentation Coincide with 3-Valued Stable Models in Logic Programming , 2009, Stud Logica.

[14]  Paul E. Dunne,et al.  Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Francesca Toni,et al.  A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation , 2014, Argument Comput..

[16]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Towards fixed-parameter tractable algorithms for abstract argumentation , 2012, Artif. Intell..

[17]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Towards Artificial Argumentation , 2017, AI Mag..

[18]  Pierre Marquis,et al.  Symmetric Argumentation Frameworks , 2005, ECSQARU.

[19]  Martin Caminada,et al.  On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Philippe Besnard,et al.  Logical limits of abstract argumentation frameworks , 2013, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[21]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  On Labelling Statements in Multi-Labelling Argumentation , 2016, ECAI.

[22]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  On the Justification of Statements in Argumentation-based Reasoning , 2016, KR.

[23]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties , 2011, Artif. Intell..

[24]  B. Mohar,et al.  Graph Minors , 2009 .

[25]  Christian G. Fermüller,et al.  Logical Argumentation Principles, Sequents, and Nondeterministic Matrices , 2017, LORI.