Computational complexity of flat and generic Assumption-Based Argumentation, with and without probabilities

被引:11
作者
Cyras, Kristijonas [1 ]
Heinrich, Quentin [1 ]
Toni, Francesca [1 ]
机构
[1] Imperial Coll London, 180 Queens Gate, London SW7 2AZ, England
基金
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
Complexity; Probabilistic argumentation; Structured argumentation; Assumption-Based Argumentation; STRUCTURED ARGUMENTATION; LOGIC; INFERENCE; GRAPHS; MODEL;
D O I
10.1016/j.artint.2020.103449
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Reasoning with probabilistic information has recently attracted considerable attention in argumentation, and formalisms of Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation (PAA), Probabilistic Bipolar Argumentation (PBA) and Probabilistic Structured Argumentation (PSA) have been proposed. These foundational advances have been complemented with investigations on the complexity of some approaches to PAA and PBA, but not to PSA. We study the complexity of an existing form of PSA, namely Probabilistic Assumption-Based Argumentation (PABA), a powerful, implemented formalism which subsumes several forms of PAA and other forms of PSA. Specifically, we establish membership (general upper bounds) and completeness (instantiated lower bounds) of reasoning in PABA for the class FP#P (of functions with a #P-oracle for counting the solutions of an NP problem) with respect to newly introduced probabilistic verification, credulous and sceptical acceptance function problems under several ABA semantics. As a by-product necessary to establish PABA complexity results, we provide a comprehensive picture of the ABA complexity landscape (for both flat and generic, possibly non-flat ABA) for the classical decision problems of verification, existence, credulous and sceptical acceptance under those ABA semantics. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页数:36
相关论文
共 84 条
  • [11] An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning
    Bondarenko, A
    Dung, PM
    Kowalski, RA
    Toni, F
    [J]. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 1997, 93 (1-2) : 63 - 101
  • [12] Bongiovanni G., 2018, HDB LEGAL REASONING
  • [13] Borg A, 2018, PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTY-SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, P1753
  • [14] On the Equivalence between Assumption-Based Argumentation and Logic Programming
    Caminada, Martin
    Schulz, Claudia
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH, 2017, 60 : 779 - 825
  • [15] Caminada Martin., 2007, BNAIC, P81
  • [16] Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: Towards a better understanding
    Cayrol, Claudette
    Lagasquie-Schiex, Marie-Christine
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPROXIMATE REASONING, 2013, 54 (07) : 876 - 899
  • [17] Cecchi L., 2006, 11 INT WORKSH NONM R, P390
  • [18] Chapman M., 2019, 18 INT C AUT AG MULT, P2345
  • [19] Cyras K., 2018, Handbook of Formal Argumentation, P365
  • [20] Cyras K., 2020, ARGUMENT COMPUT, V1, P1, DOI https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-200523 10.3233/AAC-200523