Sets of Boolean Connectives That Make Argumentation Easier

  • Nadia Creignou
  • Johannes Schmidt
  • Michael Thomas
  • Stefan Woltran
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6341)


Many proposals for logic-based formalizations of argumentation consider an argument as a pair (Φ,α), where the support Φ is understood as a minimal consistent subset of a given knowledge base which has to entail the claim α. In most scenarios, arguments are given in the full language of classical propositional logic which makes reasoning in such frameworks a computationally costly task. For instance, the problem of deciding whether there exists a support for a given claim has been shown to be \(\Sigma^\mathrm{p}_2\)-complete. In order to better understand the sources of complexity (and to identify tractable fragments), we focus on arguments given over formulae in which the allowed connectives are taken from certain sets of Boolean functions. We provide a complexity classification for four different decision problems (existence of a support, checking the validity of an argument, relevance and dispensability) with respect to all possible sets of Boolean functions.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [AC02]
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable arguments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34, 197–216 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [BCRV03]
    Böhler, E., Creignou, N., Reith, S., Vollmer, H.: Playing with Boolean blocks I: Post’s lattice with applications to complexity theory. SIGACT News 34(4), 38–52 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [BD07]
    Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 619–641 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [BH01]
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif. Intell. 128, 203–235 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [BH08]
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [BMTV09]
    Beyersdorff, O., Meier, A., Thomas, M., Vollmer, H.: The complexity of propositional implication. Inf. Process. Lett. 109(18), 1071–1077 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [CML00]
    Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., Loui, R.: Logical models of argument. ACM Comput. Surv. 32, 337–383 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [CST10]
    Creignou, N., Schmidt, J., Thomas, M.: Complexity of propositional abduction for restricted sets of Boolean functions. In: Proc. 12th KR, pp. 8–16. AAAI, Menlo Park (2010)Google Scholar
  9. [DKT06]
    Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Dialectical proof procedures for assumption-based admissible argumentation. Artif. Intell. 170, 114–159 (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [Dun95]
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [EG95]
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: The complexity of logic-based abduction. J. ACM 42(1), 3–42 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [GS04]
    García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1), 95–138 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [HG10]
    Hirsch, R., Gorogiannis, N.: The complexity of the warranted formula problem in propositional argumentation. J. Log. Comput. 20, 481–499 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [Lew79]
    Lewis, H.: Satisfiability problems for propositional calculi. Mathematical Systems Theory 13, 45–53 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [Pap94]
    Papadimitriou, C.H.: Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. [Pos41]
    Post, E.: The two-valued iterative systems of mathematical logic. Ann. Math. Stud. 5, 1–122 (1941)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. [PV02]
    Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D. (ed.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  18. [PW88]
    Papadimitriou, C., Wolfe, D.: The complexity of facets resolved. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 37(1), 2–13 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [PWA03]
    Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 347–376 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [RS09]
    Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.): Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  21. [Tho09]
    Thomas, M.: The complexity of circumscriptive inference in Post’s lattice. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 290–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadia Creignou
    • 1
  • Johannes Schmidt
    • 1
  • Michael Thomas
    • 2
  • Stefan Woltran
    • 3
  1. 1.LIF, UMR CNRS 6166Aix-Marseille UniversitéMarseille Cedex 9France
  2. 2.Institut für Theoretische InformatikGottfried Wilhelm Leibniz UniversitätHannoverGermany
  3. 3.Institut für Informationssysteme E184/2Technische Universität WienWienAustria

Personalised recommendations