On the Complexity of Computing the Justification Status of an Argument

  • Wolfgang Dvořák
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7132)


We address the problem of determining the acceptance status of an argument w.r.t. labeling-based semantics. Wu and Caminada recently proposed a labeling-based justification status of arguments to distinguish different levels of acceptability for arguments. We generalize their approach, which was originally restricted to complete semantics, to arbitrary argumentation semantics and provide a comprehensive study of the computational properties.


Acceptance Status Argumentation Framework Computational Property Judgment Aggregation Prefer Extension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baroni, P., Dunne, P.E., Giacomin, M.: On the resolution-based family of abstract argumentation semantics and its grounded instance. Artif. Intell. 175(3-4), 791–813 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Comparing Argumentation Semantics with Respect to Skepticism. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, pp. 210–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Semantics of abstract argument systems. In: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 25–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Proc. COMMA 2006, pp. 121–130 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caminada, M.: On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caminada, M.: Comparing two unique extension semantics for formal argumentation: ideal and eager. In: Proc. BNAIC 2007, pp. 81–87 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caminada, M.: A labelling approach for ideal and stage semantics. Argument & Computation 2, 1–21 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caminada, M., Gabbay, D.M.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Studia Logica 93(2), 109–145 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caminada, M., Pigozzi, G.: On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 22(1), 64–102 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Symmetric Argumentation Frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 317–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dimopoulos, Y., Torres, A.: Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theor. Comput. Sci. 170(1-2), 209–244 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dunne, P.E.: Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 701–729 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Coherence in finite argument systems. Artif. Intell. 141(1/2), 187–203 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dunne, P.E., Caminada, M.: Computational Complexity of Semi-Stable Semantics in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. In: Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.) JELIA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5293, pp. 153–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dunne, P.E., Wooldridge, M.: Complexity of abstract argumentation. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 85–104. Springer, US (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dvořák, W., Dunne, P.E., Woltran, S.: Parametric Properties of Ideal Semantics. In: Proc. IJCAI 2011, pp. 851–856 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dvořák, W., Woltran, S.: Complexity of semi-stable and stage semantics in argumentation frameworks. Inf. Process. Lett. 110(11), 425–430 (2010)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dvořák, W., Woltran, S.: On the intertranslatability of argumentation semantics. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 41, 445–475 (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Verheij, B.: Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages. In: Proc. NAIC 1996, pp. 357–368 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Verheij, B.: A Labeling Approach to the Computation of Credulous Acceptance in Argumentation. In: Proc. IJCAI 2007, pp. 623–628 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu, Y., Caminada, M.: A labelling-based justification status of arguments. Studies in Logic 3(4), 12–29 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Dvořák
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Information Systems 184/2Technische Universität WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations