ASPIC+ is one of the main general frameworks for rule-based argumentation for AI. Although first-order rules are commonly used in ASPIC+ examples, most existing approaches to reason over rule-based argumentation only support propositional rules. To enable reasoning over first-order instances, a preliminary grounding step is required. As groundings can lead to an exponential increase in the size of the input theories, intelligent procedures are needed. However, there is a lack of dedicated solutions for ASPIC+. Therefore, we propose an intelligent grounding procedure that keeps the size of the grounding manageable while preserving the correctness of the reasoning process. To this end, we translate the first-order ASPIC+ instance into a Datalog program and query a Datalog engine to obtain ground substitutions to perform the grounding of rules and contraries. Additionally, we propose simplifications specific to the ASPIC+ formalism to avoid grounding of rules that have no influence on the reasoning process. Finally, we performed an empirical evaluation of a prototypical implementation to show scalability.

Abstract argumentation is a prominent reasoning framework. It comes with a variety of semantics and has lately been enhanced by probabilities to enable a quantitative treatment of argumentation. While admissibility is a fundamental notion for classical reasoning in abstract argumentation frameworks, it has barely been reflected so far in the probabilistic setting. In this paper, we address the quantitative treatment of abstract argumentation based on probabilistic notions of admissibility. Our approach follows the natural idea of defining probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation by systematically imposing constraints on the joint probability distribution on the sets of arguments, rather than on probabilities of single arguments. As a result, there might be either a uniquely defined distribution satisfying the constraints, but also none, many, or even an infinite number of satisfying distributions are possible. We provide probabilistic semantics corresponding to the classical complete and stable semantics and show how labeling schemes provide a bridge from distributions back to argument labelings. In relation to existing work on probabilistic argumentation, we present a taxonomy of semantic notions. Enabled by the constraint-based approach, standard reasoning problems for probabilistic semantics can be tackled by SMT solvers, as we demonstrate by a proof-of-concept implementation.

Abstract argumentation is a prominent reasoning framework. It comes with a variety of semantics, and has lately been enhanced by probabilities to enable a quantitative treatment of argumentation. While admissibility is a fundamental notion in the classical setting, it has been merely reflected so far in the probabilistic setting. In this paper, we address the quantitative treatment of argumentation based on probabilistic notions of admissibility in a way that they form fully conservative extensions of classical notions. In particular, our building blocks are not the beliefs regarding single arguments. Instead we start from the fairly natural idea that whatever argumentation semantics is to be considered, semantics systematically induces constraints on the joint probability distribution on the sets of arguments. In some cases there might be many such distributions, even infinitely many ones, in other cases there may be one or none. Standard semantic notions are shown to induce such sets of constraints, and so do their probabilistic extensions. This allows them to be tackled by SMT solvers, as we demonstrate by a proof-of-concept implementation. We present a taxonomy of semantic notions, also in relation to published work, together with a running example illustrating our achievements.

Abstract Powerful formalisms for abstract argumentation have been proposed, among them abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) that allow for a succinct and flexible specification of the relationship between arguments and the GRAPPA framework which allows argumentation scenarios to be represented as arbitrary edge-labeled graphs. The complexity of ADFs and GRAPPA is located beyond NP and ranges up to the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. The combined complexity of Answer Set Programming (ASP) exactly matches this complexity when programs are restricted to predicates of bounded arity. In this paper, we exploit this coincidence and present novel efficient translations from ADFs and GRAPPA to ASP. More specifically, we provide reductions for the five main ADF semantics of admissible, complete, preferred, grounded, and stable interpretations, and exemplify how these reductions need to be adapted for GRAPPA for the admissible, complete, and preferred semantics.

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are generalizations of Dung argumentation frameworks where arbitrary relationships among arguments can be formalized. This additional expressibility comes with the price of higher computational complexity, thus an understanding of potentially easier subclasses is essential. Compared to Dung argumentation frameworks, where several subclasses such as acyclic and symmetric frameworks are well understood, there has been no indepth analysis for ADFs in such direction yet (with the notable exception of bipolar ADFs). In this work, we introduce certain subclasses of ADFs and investigate their properties. In particular, we show that for acyclic ADFs, the different semantics coincide. On the other hand, we show that the concept of symmetry is less powerful for ADFs and further restrictions are required to achieve results that are similar to the known ones for Dung's frameworks. We also provide experiments to analyse the performance of solvers when applied to particular subclasses of ADFs.

Powerful formalisms for abstract argumentation have been proposed. Their complexity is often located beyond NP and ranges up to the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. The combined complexity of Answer-Set Programming (ASP) exactly matches this complexity when programs are restricted to predicates of bounded arity. In this paper, we exploit this coincidence and present novel efficient translations from abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) and GRAPPA to ASP.We also empirically compare our approach to other systems for ADF reasoning and report promising results.

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) constitute a recent and powerful generalization of Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs), where the relationship between the arguments is specified via Boolean formulas. Recent results have shown that this enhancement comes with the price of higher complexity compared to AFs. In fact, acceptance problems in the world of ADFs can be hard even for the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. In order to implement reasoning problems on ADFs, systems for quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs) thus are suitable engines to be employed. In this paper we present QBF encodings on ADF problems generalizing recent work on QBFs for AF labellings. Our encodings not only provide a uniform and modular way of translating reasoning in ADFs to QBFs, but also build the basis for a novel system. We present a prototype implementation for the admissible and preferred semantics and evaluate its performance in comparison with another state-of-the-art tool for ADFs.