Diversity of Extensions in Abstract Argumentation
Johannes K. Fichte, Markus Hecher, Yasir Mahmood, Zhengjun Wang

TL;DR
This paper introduces a quantitative measure of diversity among extensions in abstract argumentation frameworks, analyzing its complexity and providing a prototype for computation.
Contribution
It defines a new notion of diversity based on symmetric difference, classifies its computational complexity, and offers a prototype implementation.
Findings
Diversity captures how much extensions differ in argumentation frameworks.
Complexity classification for deciding k-diverse extensions is provided.
A prototype tool for computing diversity levels is outlined and evaluated.
Abstract
Argumentation is an important topic of AI for modelling and reasoning about arguments. In abstract argumentation, we consider directed graphs, so-called argumentation frameworks (AF), that express conflicts between arguments. The semantics is defined by the notion of extensions, which are sets of arguments that satisfy particular relationship conditions in the AF. Usually, standard reasoning in argumentation do not reveal how far apart extensions are. We introduce a quantitative notion of diversity of extensions based on the symmetric difference and provide a systematic complexity classification. Intuitively, diversity captures whether extensions of a framework (accepted viewpoints) differ only marginally or represent fundamentally incompatible sets of arguments. We study whether an AF admits k-diverse extensions, admits k-diverse extensions covering specific arguments, and to compute…
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.
