Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
  1. Home
  2. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
  3. Article
Indepth combinatorial analysis of admissible sets for abstract argumentation
Download PDF
Your article has downloaded

Similar articles being viewed by others

Slider with three articles shown per slide. Use the Previous and Next buttons to navigate the slides or the slide controller buttons at the end to navigate through each slide.

Valid attacks in argumentation frameworks with recursive attacks

19 November 2020

C. Cayrol, J. Fandinno, … M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex

A review of the relations between logical argumentation and reasoning with maximal consistency

27 April 2019

Ofer Arieli, AnneMarie Borg & Jesse Heyninck

An Axiomatic Approach to the Quantified Argument Calculus

24 January 2022

Matteo Pascucci

A formal characterization of the outcomes of rule-based argumentation systems

13 June 2018

Leila Amgoud & Philippe Besnard

On argument acceptability change towards legal interpretation dynamics

10 October 2020

Martín O. Moguillansky & Luciano H. Tamargo

An Incremental Algorithm for Computing the Grounded Extension of Dynamic Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

21 June 2019

Gianvincenzo Alfano, Sergio Greco & Francesco Parisi

A Computable Structure with Non-Standard Computability

01 April 2019

R. R. Avdeev & V. G. Puzarenko

Connecting fuzzy logic and argumentation frames via logical attack principles

06 September 2018

Esther Anna Corsi & Christian G. Fermüller

When expert opinion evidence goes wrong

16 March 2019

Douglas Walton

Download PDF
  • S706 Conceptual Structures
  • Open Access
  • Published: 26 March 2022

Indepth combinatorial analysis of admissible sets for abstract argumentation

  • Cosmina Croitoru  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1731-43861 &
  • Madalina Croitoru2 

Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence volume 90, pages 1139–1158 (2022)Cite this article

  • 180 Accesses

  • Metrics details

Abstract

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.

Download to read the full article text

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the most common mistakes and prepare your manuscript for journal editors.

Learn more

References

  1. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171, 675–700 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. 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)

  3. Brandt, F., Harrenstein, P.: Set-Rationalizable Choice functions and self- stability. J. Econ. Theory 146, 233–273 (2011)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. 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)

  5. Caminada, M.: Semi-Stable Semantics. Proc. of COMMA 2006, IOS Press 144, 121–130 (2006)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. 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)

  7. 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)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. 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)

  9. Chvátal, V: On the Computational Complexity of Finding a Kernel. Tech Rep. Centre de Recherches Mathématiques, Université de Montréal (1973)

  10. Chvátal, V., Lovász, L.: Every directed graph has a semi-kernel, vol. 411, p 175 (1974)

  11. Croitoru, C.: A note on quasi-kernels in digraphs. Inf. Process. Lett. 115(11), 863–865 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Dimopoulos, Y., Torres, A.: Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theoret Comput Sci 170, 209–244 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. 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)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. 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)

  15. Dunne, P.E.: Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints. Artif. Intell. 171, 701–729 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.: Coherence in finite argument systems. Artif. Intell. 141, 187–203 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Dunne, P.E., Dvorák, W., Woltran, S.: Parametric properties of ideal semantics. Artif. Intell. 202, 1–28 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Dvorák, W., Dunne, P.E.: Computational Problems in Formal Argumentation and their Complexity. Handbook of Formal Argumentation, Chap 14, 631–687 (2018)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Fraenkel, A.: Combinatorial game theory foundations applied to digraph kernels. Electron. J. Comb. 4, 100–117 (1997)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Grossi, D., Modgil, S.: On the graded acceptability of arguments in abstract and instantiated argumentation. Artif Intell, pp. 138–173 (2019)

  21. Heusner, M., Keller, T., Helmert, M.: Understanding the search behavior of gbfs. In: Proceedings of SOCS, vol. 2017, pp 47–55 (2017)

  22. Nofal, S., Atkinson, K., Dunne, P.E.: Algorithms for decision problems in argument systems under preferred semantics. Artif. Intell. 207, 23–51 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Nofal, S., Atkinson, K., Dunne, E.P.: On checking skeptical and ideal admissibility in abstract argumentation frameworks. Inf Process Lett, pp. 7–12 (2019)

  24. Pollock, J.L.: Cognitive Carpentry a Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. 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)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank anonymous reviewers for their careful reading our manuscript and suggesting substantial improvements.

Funding

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institut for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Cosmina Croitoru

  2. LIRMM Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Madalina Croitoru

Authors
  1. Cosmina Croitoru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Madalina Croitoru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cosmina Croitoru.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Accepted: 10 January 2022

  • Published: 26 March 2022

  • Issue Date: December 2022

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-022-09785-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Acceptability
  • Graph theory
  • Dung semantics
  • Argumentation frameworks

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

  • 68T27
  • 68R10
  • 68Q25
  • 03B22
Download PDF

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the most common mistakes and prepare your manuscript for journal editors.

Learn more

Advertisement

Over 10 million scientific documents at your fingertips

Switch Edition
  • Academic Edition
  • Corporate Edition
  • Home
  • Impressum
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • California Privacy Statement
  • How we use cookies
  • Manage cookies/Do not sell my data
  • Accessibility
  • FAQ
  • Contact us
  • Affiliate program

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Part of Springer Nature.