Wolfgang Dvořák

Michael Bernreiter, Wolfgang Dvorak, Anna Rapberger et al.

In this paper, we study the effect of preferences in abstract argumentation under a claim-centric perspective. Recent work has revealed that semantical and computational properties can change when reasoning is performed on claim-level rather than on the argument-level, while under certain natural restrictions (arguments with the same claims have the same outgoing attacks) these properties are conserved. We now investigate these effects when, in addition, preferences have to be taken into account and consider four prominent reductions to handle preferences between arguments. As we shall see, these reductions give rise to different classes of claim-augmented argumentation frameworks, and behave differently in terms of semantic properties and computational complexity. This strengthens the view that the actual choice for handling preferences has to be taken with care.

Wolfgang Dvořák, Matthias König, Markus Ulbricht et al.

Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) are a key formalism in AI research. Their semantics have been investigated in terms of principles, which define characteristic properties in order to deliver guidance for analysing established and developing new semantics. Because of the simple structure of AFs, many desired properties hold almost trivially, at the same time hiding interesting concepts behind syntactic notions. We extend the principle-based approach to Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks (SETAFs) and provide a comprehensive overview of common principles for their semantics. Our analysis shows that investigating principles based on decomposing the given SETAF (e.g. directionality or SCC-recursiveness) poses additional challenges in comparison to usual AFs. We introduce the notion of the reduct as well as the modularization principle for SETAFs which will prove beneficial for this kind of investigation. We then demonstrate how our findings can be utilized for incremental computation of extensions and give a novel parameterized tractability result for verifying preferred extensions.

Giovanni Buraglio, Wolfgang Dvorak, Stefan Woltran

Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) is a well-established formalism for modelling and reasoning over debates, with a wide range of applications. However, the high computational complexity of core reasoning tasks in ABA poses a significant challenge for its applicability. This issue is further aggravated when ABA frameworks (ABAFs) are instantiated into graph-based argumentation formalisms, such as Dung's Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) and Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks (SETAFs). In knowledge representation and reasoning, a key strategy to address computational intractability is to optimise reasoning over a given knowledge base through divide-and-conquer algorithms. A paradigmatic example of this approach is splitting, where extensions of a given framework are computed incrementally, by restricting the search space to sub-frameworks only, and then combining the obtained results. This approach has been successfully applied to AFs, for which also a parametrised version has been introduced under stable semantics. However, the exponential growth produced by the instantiation might undermine the usefulness of splitting on the argument graphs induced by ABAFs. To address this issue, our work investigates the concept of splitting on the knowledge base rather than on its graph-based instantiation. Furthermore, we generalise splitting to its parametrised version for ABAFs.

Giovanni Buraglio, Wolfgang Dvorak, Stefan Woltran

Strong equivalence between knowledge bases ensures the possibility of replacing one with the other without affecting reasoning outcomes, in any given context. This makes it a crucial property in nonmonotonic formalisms. In particular, the fields of logic programming and abstract argumentation provide primary examples in which this property has been subject to vast investigations. However, while (classes of) logic programs and abstract argumentation frameworks are known to be semantically equivalent in static settings, this alignment breaks in dynamic contexts due to differing notions of update. As a result, strong equivalence does not always carry over from one formalism to the other. In this paper, we carefully investigate this discrepancy and introduce a new notion of strong equivalence for logic programs. Our approach preserves strong equivalence under translation between certain classes of logic programs and both Dung-style and claim-augmented argumentation frameworks, thus restoring compatibility across these formalisms.

Wolfgang Dvořák, Matthias König, Johannes P. Wallner et al.

In this solver description we present ASPARTIX-V, in its 2021 edition, which participates in the International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA) 2021. ASPARTIX-V is capable of solving all classical (static) reasoning tasks part of ICCMA'21 and extends the ASPARTIX system suite by incorporation of recent ASP language constructs (e.g. conditional literals), domain heuristics within ASP, and multi-shot methods. In this light ASPARTIX-V deviates from the traditional focus of ASPARTIX on monolithic approaches (i.e., one-shot solving via a single ASP encoding) to further enhance performance.

Wolfgang Dvořák, Atefeh Keshavarzi Zafarghandi, Stefan Woltran

Generalizing the attack structure in argumentation frameworks (AFs) has been studied in different ways. Most prominently, the binary attack relation of Dung frameworks has been extended to the notion of collective attacks. The resulting formalism is often termed SETAFs. Another approach is provided via abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs), where acceptance conditions specify the relation between arguments; restricting these conditions naturally allows for so-called support-free ADFs. The aim of the paper is to shed light on the relation between these two different approaches. To this end, we investigate and compare the expressiveness of SETAFs and support-free ADFs under the lens of 3-valued semantics. Our results show that it is only the presence of unsatisfiable acceptance conditions in support-free ADFs that discriminate the two approaches.

Krishnendu Chatterjee, Wolfgang Dvořák, Monika Henzinger et al.

We consider planning problems for graphs, Markov decision processes (MDPs), and games on graphs. While graphs represent the most basic planning model, MDPs represent interaction with nature and games on graphs represent interaction with an adversarial environment. We consider two planning problems where there are k different target sets, and the problems are as follows: (a) the coverage problem asks whether there is a plan for each individual target set, and (b) the sequential target reachability problem asks whether the targets can be reached in sequence. For the coverage problem, we present a linear-time algorithm for graphs and quadratic conditional lower bound for MDPs and games on graphs. For the sequential target problem, we present a linear-time algorithm for graphs, a sub-quadratic algorithm for MDPs, and a quadratic conditional lower bound for games on graphs. Our results with conditional lower bounds establish (i) model-separation results showing that for the coverage problem MDPs and games on graphs are harder than graphs and for the sequential reachability problem games on graphs are harder than MDPs and graphs; (ii) objective-separation results showing that for MDPs the coverage problem is harder than the sequential target problem.

Ringo Baumann, Wolfgang Dvorák, Thomas Linsbichler et al.

Abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) are one of the most studied formalisms in AI. In this work, we introduce a certain subclass of AFs which we call compact. Given an extension-based semantics, the corresponding compact AFs are characterized by the feature that each argument of the AF occurs in at least one extension. This not only guarantees a certain notion of fairness; compact AFs are thus also minimal in the sense that no argument can be removed without changing the outcome. We address the following questions in the paper: (1) How are the classes of compact AFs related for different semantics? (2) Under which circumstances can AFs be transformed into equivalent compact ones? (3) Finally, we show that compact AFs are indeed a non-trivial subclass, since the verification problem remains coNP-hard for certain semantics.

Wolfgang Dvorak, Stefan Woltran

Translations between different nonmonotonic formalisms always have been an important topic in the field, in particular to understand the knowledge-representation capabilities those formalisms offer. We provide such an investigation in terms of different semantics proposed for abstract argumentation frameworks, a nonmonotonic yet simple formalism which received increasing interest within the last decade. Although the properties of these different semantics are nowadays well understood, there are no explicit results about intertranslatability. We provide such translations wrt. different properties and also give a few novel complexity results which underlie some negative results.

Wolfgang Dvořák

We study the complexity of reasoning in abstracts argumentation frameworks close to graph classes that allow for efficient reasoning methods, i.e.\ to one of the classes of acyclic, noeven, biparite and symmetric AFs. In this work we show that certain reasoning problems on the second level of the polynomial hierarchy still maintain their full complexity when restricted to instances of fixed distance to one of the above graph classes.