Tenability and Weak Semantics: Modeling Non-uniform Defense -- Extended Version

TL;DR

This paper introduces tenability, a new family of dialogue-based semantics for abstract argumentation that models strategic defense, differing from traditional weak semantics by allowing non-uniform responses based on the opponent's attack.

Contribution

It formalizes tenability semantics with three variants, analyzes their relationships with existing semantics, and studies their computational complexity on finite frameworks.

Findings

Deciding static tenability is a^P_2-complete.

Deciding tenability and strong tenability is PSPACE-complete.

Tenability behaves differently from all previously considered weak semantics on key benchmark patterns.

Abstract

In Dung-style abstract argumentation, various semantics capture notions of acceptability of arguments. The admissibility semantics capture the notion that an argument can be consistently defended from any potential counterargument. Weak semantics often relax the demands of admissibility by restricting which counterarguments must be taken seriously (e.g., discounting self-defeating or otherwise incoherent attacks). Many prominent proposals for weak semantics remain extension-based in a stronger sense. While these semantics discount attacks from arguments which are considered unreasonable, they still require a uniform defense against all reasonable arguments, even if they are collectively inconsistent. This uniformity can be too demanding when defensibility is inherently strategic, and thus the appropriate reply depends on the opponent's line of attack. We introduce tenability, a family of dialogue-based semantics that formalize when a designated argument (or a set of arguments) can be maintained in debate by a proponent against any conflict-free attack which the opponent may present. The approach is motivated by three natural benchmark patterns: self-defeating attack, floating assignment, and disjunctive reinstatement, on which tenability behaves differently from all weak semantics previously considered in the literature. We define three variants -- static tenability, tenability, and strong tenability -- via monotone commitment games over finite conflict-free moves, differing in the obligations imposed on the disputants. We establish the relative strength of these notions, prove implications and separations with previously studied weak semantics, and we analyze computational complexity on finite frameworks: deciding static tenability is $\Pi^P_2$-complete, while deciding tenability and strong tenability is PSPACE-complete.