In this paper we investigate, from a graph theoretical point of view, the notion of acceptability in Dung semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks. We advance the state of the art by introducing and analyzing combinatorial structures exploited for taming, in particular cases, the exponential blowout of acceptance algorithms. We conclude the paper by a series of observations allowing to deepen the intuition with respect to the practical use of Dung acceptance based semantics.
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171, 675–700 (2007)
Baumann, R., Brewka, G., Ulbricht, M.: Comparing weak admissibility semantics to their dung-style counterparts - reduct, modularization, and strong equivalence in abstract argumentation. In: KR, pp. 79–88 (2020)
Brandt, F., Harrenstein, P.: Set-Rationalizable Choice functions and self- stability. J. Econ. Theory 146, 233–273 (2011)
Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Proc. of Logics in Artificial Intelligence, 10Th European Conference, JELIA, LNCS 4160, vol. 4160, pp 112–123. Springer, Berlin (2006)
Caminada, M.: Semi-Stable Semantics. Proc. of COMMA 2006, IOS Press 144, 121–130 (2006)
Caminada, M.: Comparing two unique extension semantics for formal argumentation: ideal and eager. In: Proc. of the 19th Belgian-Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC 2007), pp 81–87, Utrecht University Press (2007)
Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 377–403 (2003)
Charwat, G., Dvorák, W., Gaggle, S.A., Wallner, J.P., Woltran, S.: Methods for solving reasoning problems in abstract argumentation - a survey. Artif. Intell., pp. 28–63 (2015)
Chvátal, V: On the Computational Complexity of Finding a Kernel. Tech Rep. Centre de Recherches Mathématiques, Université de Montréal (1973)
Chvátal, V., Lovász, L.: Every directed graph has a semi-kernel, vol. 411, p 175 (1974)
Croitoru, C.: A note on quasi-kernels in digraphs. Inf. Process. Lett. 115(11), 863–865 (2015)
Dimopoulos, Y., Torres, A.: Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theoret Comput Sci 170, 209–244 (1996)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)
Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: A Dialectic Procedure for Sceptical Assumption-Based Argumentation Proc. of COMMA 2006, IOS Press, vol. 144, pp 145–146 (2006)
Dunne, P.E.: Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints. Artif. Intell. 171, 701–729 (2007)
Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.: Coherence in finite argument systems. Artif. Intell. 141, 187–203 (2002)
Dunne, P.E., Dvorák, W., Woltran, S.: Parametric properties of ideal semantics. Artif. Intell. 202, 1–28 (2013)
Dvorák, W., Dunne, P.E.: Computational Problems in Formal Argumentation and their Complexity. Handbook of Formal Argumentation, Chap 14, 631–687 (2018)
Fraenkel, A.: Combinatorial game theory foundations applied to digraph kernels. Electron. J. Comb. 4, 100–117 (1997)
Grossi, D., Modgil, S.: On the graded acceptability of arguments in abstract and instantiated argumentation. Artif Intell, pp. 138–173 (2019)
Heusner, M., Keller, T., Helmert, M.: Understanding the search behavior of gbfs. In: Proceedings of SOCS, vol. 2017, pp 47–55 (2017)
Nofal, S., Atkinson, K., Dunne, P.E.: Algorithms for decision problems in argument systems under preferred semantics. Artif. Intell. 207, 23–51 (2014)
Nofal, S., Atkinson, K., Dunne, E.P.: On checking skeptical and ideal admissibility in abstract argumentation frameworks. Inf Process Lett, pp. 7–12 (2019)
Pollock, J.L.: Cognitive Carpentry a Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)
Thimm, M.: Dredd - A heuristics-guided backtracking solver with information propagation for abstract argumentation. In: The Third International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (2019)
We thank anonymous reviewers for their careful reading our manuscript and suggesting substantial improvements.
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. We certify that the submission is original work and is not under review at any other publication.
Conflict of Interests
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. All co-authors have seen and agree with the contents of the manuscript and there is no financial interest to report.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Croitoru, C., Croitoru, M. Indepth combinatorial analysis of admissible sets for abstract argumentation. Ann Math Artif Intell 90, 1139–1158 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-022-09785-3
- Graph theory
- Dung semantics
- Argumentation frameworks
Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)