Admissibility in Strength-based Argumentation: Complexity and Algorithms (Extended Version with Proofs)
Yohann Bacquey, Jean-Guy Mailly, Pavlos Moraitis, Julien Rossit

TL;DR
This paper advances the study of strength-based argumentation frameworks by proposing new admissibility semantics, analyzing their computational complexity, and developing efficient algorithms with experimental validation.
Contribution
It introduces an alternative admissibility-based semantics for StrAFs, analyzes their properties, and provides scalable algorithms for computing extensions.
Findings
Complexity of reasoning is similar to standard frameworks.
Proposed translation in pseudo-Boolean constraints is effective.
Algorithms scale well for extension enumeration.
Abstract
Recently, Strength-based Argumentation Frameworks (StrAFs) have been proposed to model situations where some quantitative strength is associated with arguments. In this setting, the notion of accrual corresponds to sets of arguments that collectively attack an argument. Some semantics have already been defined, which are sensitive to the existence of accruals that collectively defeat their target, while their individual elements cannot. However, until now, only the surface of this framework and semantics have been studied. Indeed, the existing literature focuses on the adaptation of the stable semantics to StrAFs. In this paper, we push forward the study and investigate the adaptation of admissibility-based semantics. Especially, we show that the strong admissibility defined in the literature does not satisfy a desirable property, namely Dung's fundamental lemma. We therefore propose an…
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
TopicsMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation · Software Engineering Research · Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
