Recently, there has been an increasing interest in extending Dung's framework with probability theory, leading to the Probabilistic Argumentation Framework (PAF), and with supports in addition to attacks, leading to the Bipolar Argumentation Framework (BAF). In this paper, we introduce the Conditional Probabilistic Bipolar Argumentation Framework (CPBAF), which extends Probabilistic and Bipolar AF by allowing conditional probabilities on arguments, attacks, and on (possibly cyclic) supports. In this setting, we address the problem of computing the probability that a given argument is accepted. This is carried out by introducing the concept of probabilistic explanation for a given (probabilistic) extension. We show that the complexity of the problem is FP^#P-hard and propose polynomial approximation algorithms with bounded additive error for CPBAF where cycles with an odd number of attacks are forbidden.

Computational models of argumentation is an active research field within Artificial Intelligence, with growing recent interest in real-world applications due to its intuitive reasoning mechanism and similarities to human reasoning. In this work, we focus on structured argumentation, which differs from abstract argumentation frameworks in that they work with the internal structure of the arguments. Much of the research in this area is still theoretical in nature, mostly because of the lack of benchmarks (which have mostly been investigated for abstract argumentation)—this has proven to be an important hurdle to overcome in the path to experimental research. Towards addressing this issue, we develop a knowledge base generator, called DPG, for the Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) framework that is designed to build synthetic programs for the practical evaluation of several computational tasks based on a set of nine parameters. We also develop a set of seven metrics in order to adequately assess the structural complexity of the generated programs and the computational cost of querying them; we study the computational complexity of computing such metrics, showing that most of them are intractable. Finally, we carry out an experimental evaluation of DPG in two parts. First, we carry out a rigorous study of the relationship between DPG parameter settings and metrics, which leads to the identification of interesting correlations that yield insights into how parameters must be adjusted in order to generate programs of a desired nature. Second, by setting thresholds for the value of specific metrics, we can divide programs into “easy” or “hard”, and we show that it is feasible to train binary classifiers that, given a specific set of values for the parameters of the generator, are able to predict whether or not the generated instances will be difficult or easy to solve in terms of the running time metric. We also investigate the use of autoencoders to support the fully automated generation of easy or hard programs, achieving promising results in this task as well. These results demonstrate that one can avoid the theoretically costly “generate and check” process.

Explainable AI has received significant attention in recent years. Machine learning models often operate as black boxes, lacking explainability and transparency while supporting decision-making processes. Local post-hoc explainability queries attempt to answer why individual inputs are classified in a certain way by a given model. While there has been important work on counterfactual explanations, less attention has been devoted to semifactual ones. In this paper, we focus on local post-hoc explainability queries within the semifactual `even-if' thinking and their computational complexity among different classes of models, and show that both linear and tree-based models are strictly more interpretable than neural networks. After this, we introduce a preference-based framework enabling users to personalize explanations based on their preferences, both in the case of semifactuals and counterfactuals, enhancing interpretability and user-centricity. Finally, we explore the complexity of several interpretability problems in the proposed preference-based framework and provide algorithms for polynomial cases.

Argumentation is an important research area in the field of AI. There is a substantial amount of work on different aspects of Dung's abstract Argumentation Framework (AF). Two relevant aspects considered separately so far are: i) extending the framework to account for recursive attacks and supports, and ii) considering dynamics, i.e., AFs evolving over time. In this paper, we jointly deal with these two aspects. We focus on High-Order Argumentation Frameworks with Necessities (HOAFNs) which allow for attack and support relations (interpreted as necessity) not only between arguments but also targeting attacks and supports at any level. We propose an approach for the incremental evaluation of the credulous acceptance problem in HOAFNs, by “incrementally” computing an extension (a set of accepted arguments, attacks and supports), if it exists, containing a given goal element in an updated HOAFN. In particular, we are interested in monitoring the credulous acceptance of a given argument, attack or support (goal) in an evolving HOAFN. Thus, our approach assumes to have a HOAFN Δ, a goal ϱ occurring in Δ, an extension E for Δ containing ϱ, and an update u establishing some changes in the original HOAFN, and uses the extension for first checking whether the update is relevant; for relevant updates, an extension of the updated HOAFN containing the goal is computed by translating the problem to the AF domain and leveraging on AF solvers. We provide formal results for our incremental approach and empirically show that it outperforms the evaluation from scratch of the credulous acceptance problem for an updated HOAFN.

Dung's Argumentation Framework (AF) has been extended in several directions to make knowledge representation and reasoning tasks more intuitive and/or expressive. We present a novel extension of AF called Featured AF (FAF), where each argument has associated a set of features expressed by means of unary and binary facts. In such a context, a query is expressed by means of a conjunctive relational calculus formula which is evaluated over the extensions of the FAF. Then, this framework is further expanded into the so-called Extended FAF (EFAF), where a first-order logic formula (FOL) is used for reasoning over `feasible' subframeworks that satisfy the FOL formula and minimally differ from the original framework. We investigate the computational complexity of verification and acceptance problems under several semantics and show that incomplete AF (iAF) frameworks, including correlated iAF and constrained iAF, are special cases of EFAF.

Counterfactual explanations (CXs) are widely recognised as an essential technique for providing recourse recommendations for AI models. However, it is not obvious how to determine CXs in model multiplicity scenarios, where equally performing but different models can be obtained for the same task. In this paper, we propose novel qualitative and quantitative definitions of CXs based on explicit, nested quantification over (groups) of model decisions. We also study properties of these notions and identify decision problems of interest therefor. While our CXs are broadly applicable, in this paper we instantiate them within computational argumentation where model multiplicity naturally emerges, e.g. with incomplete and case-based argumentation frameworks. We then illustrate the suitability of our CXs for model multiplicity in legal and healthcare contexts, before analysing the complexity of the associated decision problems.

Dung's abstract Argumentation Framework (AF) has been extended in several directions to make knowledge representation and reasoning more intuitive and expressive. In this paper, we present the Knowledge-based Argumentation Framework (KAF), an extension of AF with a Knowledge Base (KB) expressed in DL-Lite, which includes concept and role instances describing the topology of an AF, besides additional knowledge on the domain. The KAF semantics is given by a set of KAF extensions, each consisting of an extension of the underlying AF together with a ``pertinent'' subset of the original KB, which is obtained by discarding assertions referring to arguments that have been ruled out in the AF extension. Then, the framework is further expanded into the Constrained KAF (CKAF), where a set of restricted relational calculus formulae is used for reasoning over `feasible' subframeworks that satisfy the formulae and minimally differ from the original framework. We thoroughly investigate the computational complexity of classical reasoning problems under popular argumentation semantics, and show that well-known AF-based frameworks are special cases of CKAF.

Dung’s Argumentation Framework (AF) has been extended in several directions. Among the numerous proposed extensions, three of them seem to be of particular interest and have correlations between them. These extensions are: constrained AF (CAF), where AF is augmented with (strong) constraints; epistemic AF (EAF), where AF is augmented with epistemic constraints; and incomplete AF (iAF), where arguments and attacks can be uncertain. While the complexity and expressiveness of CAF and iAF have been studied, that of EAF has not been explored so far. In this paper we investigate the complexity and expressivity of EAF. To this end, we first introduce the Labeled CAF (LCAF), a variation of CAF where constraints are defined over the alphabet of labeled arguments. Then, we investigate the complexity of credulous and skeptical reasoning and show that: i) EAF is more expressive than iAF (under preferred semantics), ii) although LCAF is a restriction of EAF where modal operators are not allowed, these frameworks have the same complexity, iii) the results for LCAF close a gap in the characterization of the complexity of CAF. Interestingly, even though EAF has the same complexity as LCAF, it allows modeling domain knowledge in a more natural and easy-to-understand way.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Formal Argumentation have received significant attention in recent years. Argumentation frameworks are useful for representing knowledge and reasoning on it. Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are interpretability techniques that provide insights into the outcome of a model by generating alternative hypothetical instances. While there has been important work on counterfactual and semifactual explanations for Machine Learning (ML) models, less attention has been devoted to these kinds of problems in argumentation. In this paper, we explore counterfactual and semifactual reasoning in abstract Argumentation Framework. We investigate the computational complexity of counterfactual- and semifactual-based reasoning problems, showing that they are generally harder than classical argumentation problems such as credulous and skeptical acceptance. Finally, we show that counterfactual and semifactual queries can be encoded in weak-constrained Argumentation Framework, and provide a computational strategy through ASP solvers.

Dealing with controversial information is an important issue in several application contexts. Formal argumentation enables reasoning on arguments for and against a claim to decide on an outcome. Dung's abstract Argumentation Framework (AF) has emerged as a central formalism in argument-based reasoning. Key aspects of the success and popularity of Dung's framework include its simplicity and expressiveness. Integrity constraints help to express domain knowledge in a compact and natural way, thus keeping easy the modeling task even for problems that otherwise would be hard to encode within an AF. In this paper, we first explore two intuitive semantics based on Kleene and Lukasiewicz logics, respectively, for AF augmented with (strong) constraints—the resulting argumentation framework is called Constrained AF (CAF). Then, we propose a new argumentation framework called Weak constrained AF (WAF) that enhances CAF with weak constraints. Intuitively, these constraints can be used to find “optimal” solutions to problems defined through CAF. We provide a detailed complexity analysis of CAF and WAF, showing that strong constraints do not increase the expressive power of AF in most cases, while weak constraints systematically increase the expressive power of CAF (and AF) under several well-known argumentation semantics.

Abstract Dung’s abstract Argumentation Framework (AF) has emerged as a key formalism for argumentation in artificial intelligence. It has been extended in several directions, including the possibility to express supports, leading to the development of the Bipolar Argumentation Framework (BAF), and recursive attacks and supports, resulting in the Recursive BAF (Rec-BAF). Different interpretations of supports have been proposed, whereas for Rec-BAF (where the target of attacks and supports may also be attacks and supports) even different semantics for attacks have been defined. However, the semantics of these frameworks have either not been defined in the presence of support cycles or are often quite intricate in terms of the involved definitions. We encompass this limitation and present classical semantics for general BAF and Rec-BAF and show that the semantics for specific BAF and Rec-BAF frameworks can be defined by very simple and intuitive modifications of that defined for the case of AF. This is achieved by providing a modular definition of the sets of defeated and acceptable elements for each AF-based framework. We also characterize, in an elegant and uniform way, the semantics of general BAF and Rec-BAF in terms of logic programming and partial stable model semantics.

Dung's abstract Argumentation Framework (AF) has emerged as a central formalism in the area of knowledge representation and reasoning. Preferences in AF allow to represent the comparative strength of arguments in a simple yet expressive way. Preference-based AF (PAF) has been proposed to extend AF with preferences of the form a > b, whose intuitive meaning is that argument a is better than b. In this paper we generalize PAF by introducing conditional preferences of the form a > b \leftarrow body that informally state that a is better than b whenever the condition expressed by body is true. The resulting framework, namely Conditional Preference-based AF (CPAF), extends the PAF semantics under three well-known preference criteria, i.e. democratic, elitist, and KTV. After introducing CPAF, we study the complexity of the verification problem (deciding whether a set of arguments is a ``best'' extension) as well as of the credulous and skeptical acceptance problems (deciding whether a given argument belongs to any or all ``best'' extensions, respectively) under multiple-status semantics (that is, complete, preferred, stable, and semi-stable semantics) for the above-mentioned preference criteria.

Dung’s Argumentation Framework (AF) has been extended in several directions. An interesting extension, among others, is the Epistemic AF (EAF) which allows representing the agent’s belief by means of epistemic constraints. In particular, an epistemic constraint is a propositional formula over labeled arguments (e.g. in(a), out(c)) extended with the modal operators K and M that intuitively state that the agent believes that a given formula is certainly or possibly true, respectively. In this paper, focusing on EAF, we investigate the complexity of the possible and necessary variants of three canonical problems in abstract argumentation: verification, existence, and non-empty existence. Moreover, we explore the relationship between EAF and incomplete AF (iAF), an extension of AF where arguments and attacks may be uncertain. Our complexity analysis shows that the verification problem in iAF can be naturally reduced to the verification in EAF, while it turns out that a similar result cannot hold for the necessary (non-empty) existence problem.

In recent years there has been an increasing interest in extending Dung's framework to facilitate the knowledge representation and reasoning process. In this paper, we present an extension of Abstract Argumentation Framework (AF) that allows for the representation of preferences over arguments' truth values (3-valued preferences). For instance, we can express a preference stating that extensions where argument a is false (i.e. defeated) are preferred to extensions where argument b is false. Interestingly, such a framework generalizes the well-known Preference-based AF with no additional cost in terms of computational complexity for most of the classical argumentation semantics. Then, we further extend AF by considering both (3-valued) preferences and 3-valued constraints, that is constraints of the form \varphi \Rightarrow v or v \Rightarrow \varphi, where \varphi is a logical formula and v is a 3-valued truth value. After investigating the complexity of the resulting framework,as both constraints and preferences may represent subjective knowledge of agents, we extend our framework by considering multiple agents and study the complexity of deciding acceptance of arguments in this context.

Dung's Argumentation Framework (AF) has been extended in several directions, including the possibility of representing uncertainty about the existence of arguments and attacks. In this regard, two main proposals have been introduced in the literature: Probabilistic Argumentation Framework (PrAF) and Incomplete Argumentation Framework (iAF). PrAF is an extension of AF with probability theory, thus representing quantified uncertainty. In contrast, iAF represents unquantified uncertainty, that is it can be seen as a special case where we only know that some elements (arguments or attacks) are uncertain. In this paper, we first address the problem of computing the probability that a given argument is accepted in PrAF. This is carried out by introducing the concept of probabilistic explanation for any given (probabilistic) extension. We show that the complexity of the problem is FP#P-hard and propose polynomial approximation algorithms with bounded additive error for PrAFs where odd-length cycles are forbidden. We investigate the approximate complexity of the related FP#P-hard problems of credulous and skeptical acceptance in PrAF, showing that they are generally harder than the problem of computing the probability that a given argument is accepted. Next we consider iAF and, after showing some equivalence properties among classes of iAFs, we study iAF as a special case of PrAF where uncertain elements have associated a probability equal to 1/2. Finally, given this result, we investigate the relationships between iAF acceptance problems and probabilistic acceptance in PrAF.

Dung’s Argumentation Framework (AF) has been extended in several directions, including the possibility of representing unquantified uncertainty about the existence of arguments and attacks. The framework resulting from such an extension is called incomplete AF (iAF). In this paper, we first introduce three new satisfaction problems named totality, determinism and functionality, and investigate their computational complexity for both AF and iAF under several semantics. We also investigate the complexity of credulous and skeptical acceptance in iAF under semi-stable semantics—a problem left open in the literature. We then show that any iAF can be rewritten into an equivalent one where either only (unattacked) arguments or only attacks are uncertain. Finally, we relate iAF to probabilistic argumentation framework, where uncertainty is quantified.

Dung's abstract Argumentation Framework (AF) has emerged as a central formalism for argumentation in AI. Preferences in AF allow to represent the comparative strength of arguments in a simple yet expressive way. In this paper we first investigate the complexity of the verification as well as credulous and skeptical acceptance problems in Preference-based AF (PAF) that extends AF with preferences over arguments. Next, after introducing new semantics for AF where extensions are selected using cardinality (instead of set inclusion) criteria and investigating their complexity, we introduce a framework called AF with Priority rules (AFP) that extends AF with sequences of priority rules. AFP generalizes AF with classical set-inclusion and cardinality based semantics, suggesting that argumentation semantics can be viewed as ways to express priorities among extensions. Finally, we extend AFP by proposing AF with Priority rules and Preferences (AFP^2), where also preferences over arguments can be used to define priority rules, and study the complexity of the above-mentioned problems.

Dung's abstract Argumentation Framework (AF) has emerged as a central formalism in formal argumentation. Key aspects of the success and popularity of Dung's framework include its simplicity and expressiveness. Integrity constraints help to express domain knowledge in a compact and natural way, thus keeping easy the modeling task even for problems that otherwise would be hard to encode within an AF. In this paper, after providing an intuitive semantics based on Lukasiewicz's logic for AFs with (strong) constraints, called Constrained AFs (CAFs), we propose Weak constrained AFs (WAFs) that enhance CAFs with weak constraints. Intuitively, these constraints can be used to find ``optimal'' solutions to problems defined through CAFs. We provide a detailed complexity analysis of CAFs and WAFs, showing that strong constraints do not increase the expressive power of AFs in most cases, while weak constraints systematically increase the expressive power of CAFs under several well-known argumentation semantics.

Extensions of Dung’s Argumentation Framework (AF) include the class of Recursive Bipolar AFs (Rec-BAFs), i.e. AFs with recursive attacks and supports. We show that a Rec-BAF \Delta can be translated into a logic program P_\Delta so that the extensions of \Delta under different semantics coincide with subsets of the partial stable models of P_\Delta.

Attack-Support Argumentation Framework (ASAF) is an extension of the Bipolar Argumentation Framework that allows for attacks and supports not only between arguments but also targeting attacks and supports at any level. In this paper we propose an incremental approach for computing the skeptical preferred acceptance in dynamic ASAFs. Specifically, we investigate how the skeptical acceptance of a goal element (an argument, an attack, or a support) evolves when a given ASAF is updated by adding or retracting an argument, an attack, or a support, and propose an incremental algorithm for solving this problem. Our approach relies on identifying a portion of the given ASAF which is sufficient to determine the status of the goal w.r.t. the updated ASAF. We experimentally evaluate our approach showing that it outperforms the computation from scratch on average.

Argumentation is an important topic in the field of AI. There is a substantial amount of work about different aspects of Dung's abstract Argumentation Framework (AF). Two relevant aspects considered separately so far are extending the framework to account for recursive attacks and supports, and considering dynamics, i.e., AFs evolving over time. In this paper, we jointly deal with these two aspects. We focus on Attack-Support Argumentation Frameworks (ASAFs) which allow for attack and support relations not only between arguments but also targeting attacks and supports at any level, and propose an approach for the incremental computation of extensions (sets of accepted arguments, attacks and supports) of updated ASAFs. Our approach assumes that an initial ASAF extension is given and uses it for first checking whether updates are irrelevant; for relevant updates, an extension of an updated ASAF is computed by translating the problem to the AF domain and leveraging on AF solvers. We experimentally show our incremental approach outperforms the direct computation of extensions for updated ASAFs.

Recently there has been an increasing interest in probabilistic abstract argumentation, an extension of Dung's abstract argumentation framework with probability theory. In this setting, we address the problem of computing the probability that a given argument is accepted. This is carried out by introducing the concept of probabilistic explanation for a given (probabilistic) extension. We show that the complexity of the problem is FP^#P-hard and propose polynomial approximation algorithms with bounded additive error for probabilistic argumentation frameworks where odd-length cycles are forbidden. This is quite surprising since, as we show, such kind of approximation algorithm does not exist for the related FP^#P-hard problem of computing the probability of the credulous acceptance of an argument, even for the special class of argumentation frameworks considered in the paper.

Abstract Recently there has been an increasing interest in frameworks extending Dung’s abstract Argumentation Framework (AF). Popular extensions include bipolar AFs and AFs with recursive attacks and necessary supports. Although the relationships between AF semantics and Partial Stable Models (PSMs) of logic programs has been deeply investigated, this is not the case for more general frameworks extending AF. In this paper we explore the relationships between AF-based frameworks and PSMs. We show that every AF-based framework Δ can be translated into a logic program PΔ so that the extensions prescribed by different semantics of Δ coincide with subsets of the PSMs of PΔ. We provide a logic programming approach that characterizes, in an elegant and uniform way, the semantics of several AF-based frameworks. This result allows also to define the semantics for new AF-based frameworks, such as AFs with recursive attacks and recursive deductive supports.

Though there has been an extensive body of work on efficiently solving computational problems for static Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs), little work has been done for handling dynamic AFs and in particular for deciding the skeptical acceptance of a given argument. In this paper we devise an efficient algorithm for computing the skeptical preferred acceptance in dynamic AFs. More specifically, we investigate how the skeptical acceptance of an argument (goal) evolves when the given AF is updated and propose an efficient algorithm for solving this problem. Our algorithm, called SPA, relies on two main ideas: i) computing a small portion of the input AF, called "context-based" AF, which is sufficient to determine the status of the goal in the updated AF, and ii) incrementally computing the ideal extension to further restrict the context-based AF. We experimentally show that SPA significantly outperforms the computation from scratch, and that the overhead of incrementally maintaining the ideal extension pays off as it speeds up the computation.

Extended argumentation frameworks (EAFs) extend Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs) to represent a kind of defeasible attack (by relying on the concept of second-order attack), in addition to the Dung's classical notion of attack between arguments. EAFs can be profitably used to model disputes between agents, with the aim of deciding the sets of arguments (called extensions) that should be accepted to support a point of view in a discussion. However, since new arguments and attacks are often introduced to take into account new available knowledge, EAFs as well as their extensions change over the time.

Abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) are a well-known formalism for modelling and deciding many argumentation problems. Computational issues and evaluation algorithms have been deeply investigated for static AFs, whose structure does not change over the time. However, AFs are often dynamic as a consequence of the fact that argumentation is inherently dynamic. In this paper, we tackle the problem of incrementally computing extensions for dynamic AFs: given an initial extension and an update (or a set of updates), we devise a technique for computing an extension of the updated AF under four well-known semantics (i.e., complete, preferred, stable, and grounded). The idea is to identify a reduced (updated) AF sufficient to compute an extension of the whole AF and use state-of-the-art algorithms to recompute an extension of the reduced AF only. The experiments reveal that, for all semantics considered and using different solvers, the incremental technique is on average two orders of magnitude faster than computing the semantics from scratch.