Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computing Preferred Extensions in Abstract Argumentation: A SAT-Based Approach

  • Conference paper
Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA 2013)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 8306))

Abstract

This paper presents a novel SAT-based approach for the computation of extensions in abstract argumentation, with focus on preferred semantics, and an empirical evaluation of its performances. The approach is based on the idea of reducing the problem of computing complete extensions to a SAT problem and then using a depth-first search method to derive preferred extensions. The proposed approach has been tested using two distinct SAT solvers and compared with three state-of-the-art systems for preferred extension computation. It turns out that the proposed approach delivers significantly better performances in the large majority of the considered cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Devred, C.: Argumentation frameworks as constraint satisfaction problems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1–18 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ansótegui, C., Bonet, M.L., Levy, J.: SAT-based MaxSAT. Artificial Intelligence 196, 77–105 (2013)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Predicting learnt clauses quality in modern SAT solvers. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2009, pp. 399–404 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Glucose 2.1 (2012), http://www.lri.fr/~simon/?page=glucose

  5. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowledge Engineering Review 26(4), 365–410 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Semantics of abstract argumentation systems. In: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 25–44. Springer (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 168(1-2), 165–210 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Dunne, P.E., Giacomin, M.: Automata for infinite argumentation structures. Artificial Intelligence 203, 104–150 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Besnard, P., Doutre, S.: Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments. In: Proceedings of NMR 2004, pp. 59–64 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Biere, A.: P{re,ic}oSAT@sc 2009. In: SAT Competition (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bistarelli, S., Santini, F.: Modeling and solving AFs with a constraint-based tool: Conarg. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7132, pp. 99–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pp. 121–130 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Caminada, M., Gabbay, D.M.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Studia Logica (Special Issue: New Ideas in Argumentation Theory) 93(2-3), 109–145 (2009)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Cerutti, F., Dunne, P.E., Giacomin, M., Vallati, M.: Computing Preferred Extensions in Abstract Argumentation: a SAT-based Approach. Tech. rep. (2013), http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4986

  16. Dimopoulos, Y., Nebel, B., Toni, F.: Preferred arguments are harder to compute than stable extensions. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 1999, pp. 36–43 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dimopoulos, Y., Torres, A.: Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Journal Theoretical Computer Science 170, 209–244 (1996)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: Preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: Query answering and computation. In: Goré, R., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2083, pp. 272–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pp. 145–156 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dunne, P.E., Wooldridge, M.: Complexity of abstract argumentation. In: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 85–104. Springer (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dvǒrák, W., Gaggl, S.A., Wallner, J., Woltran, S.: Making use of advances in answer-set programming for abstract argumentation systems. In: Proceedings of INAP 2011 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dvǒrák, W., Järvisalo, M., Wallner, J.P., Woltran, S.: Complexity-sensitive decision procedures for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of KR 2012. AAAI Press (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Egly, U., Gaggl, S.A., Woltran, S.: Aspartix: Implementing argumentation frameworks using answer-set programming. In: de la Garcia Banda, M., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 734–738. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Jiménez, S., de la Rosa, T., Fernández, S., Fernández, F., Borrajo, D.: A review of machine learning for automated planning. Knowledge Engineering Review 27(4), 433–467 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 7(3), 499–562 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Modgil, S., Caminada, M.: Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 105–129. Springer (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nofal, S., Dunne, P.E., Atkinson, K.: On preferred extension enumeration in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2012, pp. 205–216 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  29. South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Fox, J.: Dungine: A Java Dung reasoner. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pp. 360–368 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wallner, J.P., Weissenbacher, G., Woltran, S.: Advanced SAT techniques for abstract argumentation. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds.) CLIMA XIV 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8143, pp. 138–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Natural and Computing Science, King’s College, University of Aberdeen, AB24 3UE, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

    Federico Cerutti

  2. Department of Computer Science, Ashton Building, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZF, United Kingdom

    Paul E. Dunne

  3. Department of Information Engineering, University of Brescia, via Branze, 38, 25123, Brescia, Italy

    Massimiliano Giacomin

  4. School of Computing and Engineering, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, United Kingdom

    Mauro Vallati

Authors
  1. Federico Cerutti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul E. Dunne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Massimiliano Giacomin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mauro Vallati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, King’s College London, Strand, WC2R 2LS, London, UK

    Elizabeth Black

  2. King’s College London, Strand, WC2R 2LS, London, UK

    Sanjay Modgil

  3. Department of Computing Science, University of Aberdeen, AB24 3UE, Aberdeen, UK

    Nir Oren

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cerutti, F., Dunne, P.E., Giacomin, M., Vallati, M. (2014). Computing Preferred Extensions in Abstract Argumentation: A SAT-Based Approach. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds) Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation. TAFA 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8306. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54373-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54373-9_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54372-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54373-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation