Bipolar Abstract Argumentation with Dual Attacks and Supports

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico Potyka
Keyword(s):  
Computational Complexity ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Stable Semantics ◽  
Support Relations ◽  
Support Relationships ◽  
Computational Properties ◽  
Inherent Tendency

Bipolar abstract argumentation frameworks allow modeling decision problems by defining pro and contra arguments and their relationships. In some popular bipolar frameworks, there is an inherent tendency to favor either attack or support relationships. However, for some applications, it seems sensible to treat attack and support equally. Roughly speaking, turning an attack edge into a support edge, should just invert its meaning. We look at a recently introduced bipolar argumentation semantics and two novel alternatives and discuss their semantical and computational properties. Interestingly, the two novel semantics correspond to stable semantics if no support relations are present and maintain the computational complexity of stable semantics in general bipolar frameworks.

Choices and their Consequences - Explaining Acceptable Sets in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ringo Baumann ◽  
Markus Ulbricht
Keyword(s):  
Computational Complexity ◽  
Characteristic Function ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Argumentation Framework ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Exhaustive Study ◽  
The Given ◽  
Made In

We develop a notion of explanations for acceptance of arguments in an abstract argumentation framework. To this end we show that extensions returned by Dung's standard semantics can be decomposed into i) non-deterministic choices made on even cycles of the given argumentation graph and then ii) deterministic iteration of the so-called characteristic function. Naturally, the choice made in i) can be viewed as an explanation for the corresponding extension and thus the arguments it contains. We proceed to propose desirable criteria a reasonable notion of an explanation should satisfy. We present an exhaustive study of the newly introduced notion w.r.t. these criteria. Finally some interesting decision problems arise from our analysis and we examine their computational complexity, obtaining some surprising tractability results.

Logical Decision Problems and Complexity of Logic Programs

1987 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-33
Author(s):  
Egon Börger ◽  
Ulrich Löwen
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Point ◽  
Computational Complexity ◽  
Decision Problem ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Complexity Classes ◽  
Logic Programs ◽  
Finite Structures ◽  
Syntactic Restrictions

We survey and give new results on logical characterizations of complexity classes in terms of the computational complexity of decision problems of various classes of logical formulas. There are two main approaches to obtain such results: The first approach yields logical descriptions of complexity classes by semantic restrictions (to e.g. finite structures) together with syntactic enrichment of logic by new expressive means (like e.g. fixed point operators). The second approach characterizes complexity classes by (the decision problem of) classes of formulas determined by purely syntactic restrictions on the formation of formulas.

scholarly journals Strong admissibility for abstract dialectical frameworks

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-41
Author(s):  
Atefeh Keshavarzi Zafarghandi ◽  
Rineke Verbrugge ◽  
Bart Verheij
Keyword(s):  
Maximal Element ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Current Work ◽  
Argument Evaluation ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Proper Generalization

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have been introduced as a formalism for modeling argumentation allowing general logical satisfaction conditions and the relevant argument evaluation. 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 strongly admissible interpretations of ADFs form a lattice with the grounded interpretation as the maximal element. We also present algorithms to answer the following decision problems: (1) whether a given interpretation is a strongly admissible interpretation of a given ADF, and (2) whether a given argument is strongly acceptable/deniable in a given interpretation of a given ADF. In addition, we show that the strongly admissible semantics of ADFs forms a proper generalization of the strongly admissible semantics of AFs.

scholarly journals Choice Logics and Their Computational Properties

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bernreiter ◽  
Jan Maly ◽  
Stefan Woltran
Keyword(s):  
Computational Complexity ◽  
The Other ◽  
Core Concept ◽  
Reasoning Task ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The One ◽  
Case Basis ◽  
Computational Properties ◽  
Preference Handling

Qualitative Choice Logic (QCL) and Conjunctive Choice Logic (CCL) are formalisms for preference handling, with especially QCL being well established in the field of AI. So far, analyses of these logics need to be done on a case-by-case basis, albeit they share several common features. This calls for a more general choice logic framework, with QCL and CCL as well as some of their derivatives being particular instantiations. We provide such a framework, which allows us, on the one hand, to easily define new choice logics and, on the other hand, to examine properties of different choice logics in a uniform setting. In particular, we investigate strong equivalence, a core concept in non-classical logics for understanding formula simplification, and computational complexity. Our analysis also yields new results for QCL and CCL. For example, we show that the main reasoning task regarding preferred models is ϴ₂P-complete for QCL and CCL, while being Δ₂P-complete for a newly introduced choice logic.

The complexity of weakly recognizing morphisms

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Lukas Fleischer ◽  
Manfred Kufleitner
Keyword(s):  
Computational Complexity ◽  
Regular Languages ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Membership Problem ◽  
Surjective Morphism ◽  
Infinite Words ◽  
Descriptional Complexity ◽  
Emptiness Problem ◽  
Free Semigroups ◽  
Büchi Automaton

Weakly recognizing morphisms from free semigroups onto finite semigroups are a classical way for defining the class of ω-regular languages, i.e., a set of infinite words is weakly recognizable by such a morphism if and only if it is accepted by some Büchi automaton. We study the descriptional complexity of various constructions and the computational complexity of various decision problems for weakly recognizing morphisms. The constructions we consider are the conversion from and to Büchi automata, the conversion into strongly recognizing morphisms, as well as complementation. We also show that the fixed membership problem is NC1-complete, the general membership problem is in L and that the inclusion, equivalence and universality problems are NL-complete. The emptiness problem is shown to be NL-complete if the input is given as a non-surjective morphism.

scholarly journals An experimental analysis on the similarity of argumentation semantics

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-304
Author(s):  
Federico Cerutti ◽  
Matthias Thimm ◽  
Mauro Vallati
Keyword(s):  
Approximation Algorithm ◽  
Experimental Analysis ◽  
Learning Phase ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Simple Approximation ◽  
Approximation Approach ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Grounded Semantics ◽  
Theoretical Results

In this paper we ask whether approximation for abstract argumentation is useful in practice, and in particular whether reasoning with grounded semantics – which has polynomial runtime – is already an approximation approach sufficient for several practical purposes. While it is clear from theoretical results that reasoning with grounded semantics is different from, for example, skeptical reasoning with preferred semantics, we investigate how significant this difference is in actual argumentation frameworks. As it turns out, in many graphs models, reasoning with grounded semantics actually approximates reasoning with other semantics almost perfectly. An algorithm for grounded reasoning is thus a conceptually simple approximation algorithm that not only does not need a learning phase – like recent approaches – but also approximates well – in practice – several decision problems associated to other semantics.

Reasoning over Attack-incomplete AAFs in the Presence of Correlations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bettina Fazzinga ◽  
Sergio Flesca ◽  
Filippo Furfaro
Keyword(s):  
Computational Complexity ◽  
Logical Operators ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Precise Representation ◽  
User Friendly

Attack-Incomplete Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (att- iAAFs) are a popular extension of AAFs where attacks are marked as uncertain when they are not unanimously per- ceived by different agents reasoning on the same arguments. We here extend att-iAAFs with the possibility of specifying correlations involving the uncertain attacks. This feature sup- ports a unified and more precise representation of the differ- ent scenarios for the argumentation, where, for instance, it can be stated that an attack α has to be considered only if an attack β is considered, or that α and β are alternative, and so on. In order to provide a user-friendly language for spec- ifying the correlations, we allow the argumentation analyst to express them in terms of a set of elementary dependen- cies, using common logical operators (namely, OR , NAND , CHOICE , ⇒). In this context, we focus on the problem of verifying extensions under the possible perspective, and study the sensitivity of its computational complexity to the forms of correlations expressed and the semantics of the extensions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document