Advancing Algorithmic Approaches to Probabilistic Argumentation under the Constellation Approach

Reasoning with defeasible and conflicting knowledge in an argumentative form is a key research field in computational argumentation. Reasoning under various forms of uncertainty is both a key feature and a challenging barrier for automated argumentative reasoning. It was shown that argumentative reasoning using probabilities faces in general high computational complexity, in particular for the so-called constellation approach. In this paper, we develop an algorithmic approach to overcome this obstacle. We refine existing complexity results and show that two main reasoning tasks, that of computing the probability of a given set being an extension and an argument being acceptable, diverge in their complexity: the former is #P-complete and the latter is #-dot-NP-complete when considering their underlying counting problems. We present an algorithm for the complex task of computing the probability of a set of arguments being a complete extension by using dynamic programming operating on tree-decompositions. An experimental evaluation shows promise of our approach.

Instantiations and Computational Aspects of Non-Flat Assumption-based Argumentation

Most existing computational tools for assumption-based argumentation (ABA) focus on so-called flat frameworks, disregarding the more general case. In this paper, we study an instantiation-based approach for reasoning in possibly non-flat ABA. We make use of a semantics-preserving translation between ABA and bipolar argumentation frameworks (BAFs). By utilizing compilability theory, we establish that the constructed BAFs will in general be of exponential size. In order to keep the number of arguments and computational cost low, we present three ways of identifying redundant arguments. Moreover, we identify fragments of ABA which admit a poly-sized instantiation. We propose two algorithmic approaches for reasoning in possibly non-flat ABA. The first approach utilizes the BAF instantiation while the second works directly without constructing arguments. An empirical evaluation shows that the former outperforms the latter on many instances, reflecting the lower complexity of BAF reasoning. This result is in contrast to flat ABA, where direct approaches dominate instantiation-based approaches.

An AGM Approach to Revising Preferences

We look at preference change arising out of an interaction between two elements: the first is an initial preference ranking encoding a pre-existing attitude; the second element is new preference information signaling input from an authoritative source, which may come into conflict with the initial preference. The aim is to adjust the initial preference and bring it in line with the new preference, without having to give up more information than necessary. We model this process using the formal machinery of belief change, along the lines of the well-known AGM approach. We propose a set of fundamental rationality postulates, and derive the main results of the paper: a set of representation theorems showing that preference change according to these postulates can be rationalized as a choice function guided by a ranking on the comparisons in the initial preference order. We conclude by presenting operators satisfying our proposed postulates. Our approach thus allows us to situate preference revision within the larger family of belief change operators.

Aspartix-V21

In this solver description we present ASPARTIX-V, in its 2021 edition, which participates in the International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA) 2021. ASPARTIX-V is capable of solving all classical (static) reasoning tasks part of ICCMA'21 and extends the ASPARTIX system suite by incorporation of recent ASP language constructs (e.g. conditional literals), domain heuristics within ASP, and multi-shot methods. In this light ASPARTIX-V deviates from the traditional focus of ASPARTIX on monolithic approaches (i.e., one-shot solving via a single ASP encoding) to further enhance performance.

Harnessing Incremental Answer Set Solving for Reasoning in Assumption-Based Argumentation

Assumption-based argumentation (ABA) is a central structured argumentation formalism. As shown recently, answer set programming (ASP) enables efficiently solving NP-hard reasoning tasks of ABA in practice, in particular in the commonly studied logic programming fragment of ABA. In this work, we harness recent advances in incremental ASP solving for developing effective algorithms for reasoning tasks in the logic programming fragment of ABA that are presumably hard for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy, including skeptical reasoning under preferred semantics as well as preferential reasoning. In particular, we develop non-trivial counterexample-guided abstraction refinement procedures based on incremental ASP solving for these tasks. We also show empirically that the procedures are significantly more effective than previously proposed algorithms for the tasks. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

Weighted Abstract Dialectical Frameworks: Extended and Revised Report

Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs) generalize Dung's argumentation frameworks allowing various relationships among arguments to be expressed in a systematic way. We further generalize ADFs so as to accommodate arbitrary acceptance degrees for the arguments. This makes ADFs applicable in domains where both the initial status of arguments and their relationship are only insufficiently specified by Boolean functions. We define all standard ADF semantics for the weighted case, including grounded, preferred and stable semantics. We illustrate our approach using acceptance degrees from the unit interval and show how other valuation structures can be integrated. In each case it is sufficient to specify how the generalized acceptance conditions are represented by formulas, and to specify the information ordering underlying the characteristic ADF operator. We also present complexity results for problems related to weighted ADFs.

Improved Answer-Set Programming Encodings for Abstract Argumentation

The design of efficient solutions for abstract argumentation problems is a crucial step towards advanced argumentation systems. One of the most prominent approaches in the literature is to use Answer-Set Programming (ASP) for this endeavor. In this paper, we present new encodings for three prominent argumentation semantics using the concept of conditional literals in disjunctions as provided by the ASP-system clingo. Our new encodings are not only more succinct than previous versions, but also outperform them on standard benchmarks.