A general notion of equivalence for abstract argumentation

Abstract We introduce a parametrized equivalence notion for abstract argumentation that subsumes standard and strong equivalence as corner cases. Under this notion, two argumentation frameworks are equivalent if they deliver the same extensions under any addition of arguments and attacks that do not affect a given set of core arguments. We also provide exact characterizations and complexity results. The proposed notion of equivalence is motivated by its capability to capture the concept of local simplifications. In fact, our equivalence notion allows to decide whether a sub-framework can be replaced by another one without changing the extensions in the framework which undergoes this change. Moreover, as our characterizations demonstrate deciding this form of equivalence does not require an analysis of the entire framework. This makes it an appealing formal underpinning for establishing general replacement patterns in argumentation frameworks.

[1]  Ringo Baumann,et al.  Context-free and Context-sensitive Kernels: Update and Deletion Equivalence in abstract Argumentation , 2014, ECAI.

[2]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  The role of self-attacking arguments in characterizations of equivalence notions , 2016, J. Log. Comput..

[3]  Thomas Linsbichler,et al.  Verifiability of Argumentation Semantics , 2016, COMMA.

[4]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Abstract Argumentation Frameworks and Their Semantics , 2018 .

[5]  Ringo Baumann,et al.  Expanding Argumentation Frameworks: Enforcing and Monotonicity Results , 2010, COMMA.

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

[7]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Modularity Aspects of Disjunctive Stable Models , 2007, LPNMR.

[8]  Thomas Linsbichler,et al.  Preprocessing Argumentation Frameworks via Replacement Patterns , 2019, JELIA.

[9]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  On the Intertranslatability of Argumentation Semantics , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[10]  Thomas Linsbichler,et al.  Introducing the Second International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation , 2016, SAFA@COMMA.

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

[12]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  On topology-related properties of abstract argumentation semantics. A correction and extension to Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method , 2014, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence , 2009 .

[14]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Parameterized Splitting: A Simple Modification-Based Approach , 2012, Correct Reasoning.

[15]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Semantical characterizations and complexity of equivalences in answer set programming , 2005, TOCL.

[16]  Miroslaw Truszczynski,et al.  On graph equivalences preserved under extensions , 2011, Discret. Math..

[17]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Complexity of Abstract Argumentation , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[18]  Ringo Baumann,et al.  Splitting an Argumentation Framework , 2011, LPNMR.

[19]  Tomi Janhunen,et al.  Modular Equivalence for Normal Logic Programs , 2006, ECAI.

[20]  Katie Atkinson,et al.  Looking-ahead in backtracking algorithms for abstract argumentation , 2016, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

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

[22]  Hannes Strass,et al.  On rejected arguments and implicit conflicts: The hidden power of argumentation semantics , 2016, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Stefano Bistarelli,et al.  Containerisation and Dynamic Frameworks in ICCMA'19 , 2018, SAFA@COMMA.

[24]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Argumentation update in YALLA (Yet Another Logic Language for Argumentation) , 2016, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[25]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Characterizing Strong Equivalence for Argumentation Frameworks , 2010, KR.

[26]  Adrian Haret,et al.  Two Sides of the Same Coin: Belief Revision and Enforcing Arguments , 2018, IJCAI.

[27]  Ringo Baumann.  Characterizing Equivalence Notions for Labelling-Based Semantics , 2016, KR.

[28]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation in artificial intelligence , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[29]  Serena Villata,et al.  The first international competition on computational models of argumentation: Results and analysis , 2017, Artif. Intell..

[30]  Ringo Baumann,et al.  The equivalence zoo for Dung-style semantics , 2018, J. Log. Comput..

[31]  Ringo Baumann,et al.  Normal and strong expansion equivalence for argumentation frameworks , 2012, Artif. Intell..

[32]  Li Jin,et al.  Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method , 2011, Artif. Intell..

[33]  Serena Villata,et al.  On the Input/Output behavior of argumentation frameworks , 2014, Artif. Intell..

[34]  Ringo Baumann,et al.  A Study of Unrestricted Abstract Argumentation Frameworks , 2017, IJCAI.

[35]  Thomas Linsbichler,et al.  A General Notion of Equivalence for Abstract Argumentation , 2017, IJCAI.

[36]  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..

[37]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Elements of Argumentation , 2007, ECSQARU.

[38]  Thomas Linsbichler,et al.  On the Functional Completeness of Argumentation Semantics , 2015, DKB/KIK@KI.

[39]  Ringo Baumann.  What Does it Take to Enforce an Argument? Minimal Change in abstract Argumentation , 2012, ECAI.

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

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

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