A Note on Rich Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks

TL;DR

This paper introduces Rich Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks that unify multiple types of uncertainty in argumentation, expanding expressiveness without increasing computational complexity, and adapts existing SAT-based methods for analysis.

Contribution

It formally defines Rich IAFs combining uncertainties from IAFs and CAFs, and demonstrates their computational tractability and adaptability of SAT-based analysis.

Findings

Rich IAFs are more expressive than standard IAFs.

Computational complexity remains manageable despite increased expressiveness.

Existing SAT-based methods can be adapted to Rich IAFs.

Abstract

Recently, qualitative uncertainty in abstract argumentation has received much attention. The first works on this topic introduced uncertainty about the presence of attacks, then about the presence of arguments, and finally combined both kinds of uncertainty. This results in the Incomplete Argumentation Framework (IAFs). But another kind of uncertainty was introduced in the context of Control Argumentation Frameworks (CAFs): it consists in a conflict relation with uncertain orientation, i.e. we are sure that there is an attack between two arguments, but the actual direction of the attack is unknown. Here, we formally define Rich IAFs, that combine the three different kinds of uncertainty that were previously introduced in IAFs and CAFs. We show that this new model, although strictly more expressive than IAFs, does not suffer from a blow up of computational complexity. Also, the existing computational approach based on SAT can be easily adapted to the new framework.