An Implementation, Empirical Evaluation and Proposed Improvement for Bidirectional Splitting Method for Argumentation Frameworks under Stable Semantics
Renata Wong

TL;DR
This paper evaluates bidirectional splitting methods for argumentation frameworks under stable semantics, finding that balanced cuts outperform minimum cuts in computational efficiency.
Contribution
It implements and empirically tests bidirectional splitting with different graph cut algorithms, proposing balanced cuts as a novel improvement for better performance.
Findings
Balanced cuts significantly improve computation speed.
Minimum cuts do not enhance performance in most cases.
Empirical evaluation supports the proposed method.
Abstract
Abstract argumentation frameworks are formal systems that facilitate obtaining conclusions from non-monotonic knowledge systems. Within such a system, an argumentation semantics is defined as a set of arguments with some desired qualities, for example, that the elements are not in conflict with each other. Splitting an argumentation framework can efficiently speed up the computation of argumentation semantics. With respect to stable semantics, two methods have been proposed to split an argumentation framework either in a unidirectional or bidirectional fashion. The advantage of bidirectional splitting is that it is not structure-dependent and, unlike unidirectional splitting, it can be used for frameworks consisting of a single strongly connected component. Bidirectional splitting makes use of a minimum cut. In this paper, we implement and test the performance of the bidirectional…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
MethodsSPEED: Separable Pyramidal Pooling EncodEr-Decoder for Real-Time Monocular Depth Estimation on Low-Resource Settings
