Notice: The reproducibility variables underlying each score are classified using an automated LLM-based pipeline, validated against a manually labeled dataset. LLM-based classification introduces uncertainty and potential bias; scores should be interpreted as estimates. Full accuracy metrics and methodology are described in [1].
On Dynamics in Structured Argumentation Formalisms
Authors: Anna Rapberger, Markus Ulbricht
JAIR 2023 | Venue PDF | LLM Run Details
| Reproducibility Variable | Result | LLM Response |
|---|---|---|
| Research Type | Theoretical | This paper is a contribution to the research on dynamics in assumption-based argumentation (ABA). We investigate situations where a given knowledge base undergoes certain changes. We show that two frequently investigated problems, namely enforcement of a given target atom and deciding strong equivalence of two given ABA frameworks, are intractable in general. Notably, these problems are both tractable for abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) which admit a close correspondence to ABA by constructing semanticspreserving instances. Inspired by this observation, we search for tractable fragments for ABA frameworks by means of the instantiated AFs. We argue that the usual instantiation procedure is not suitable for the investigation of dynamic scenarios since too much information is lost when constructing the abstract framework. We thus consider an extension of AFs, called cv AFs, equipping arguments with conclusions and vulnerabilities in order to better anticipate their role after the underlying knowledge base is extended. We investigate enforcement and strong equivalence for cv AFs and present syntactic conditions to decide them. We show that the correspondence between cv AFs and ABA frameworks is close enough to capture dynamics in ABA. This yields the desired tractable fragment. We furthermore discuss consequences for the corresponding problems for logic programs. Our main contributions are as follows: We formalize and study enforcement as well as strong equivalence for ABA. We show that, as anticipated, both problems are intractable, which is in contrast to their counterparts in abstract argumentation. We prove a characterization result for deciding strong equivalence for stable semantics in ABA by means of so-called SE-models, similar in spirit to research conducted in the context of LPs. We present our novel formalism called conclusion and vulnerability augmented AFs (cv AFs). We show that cv AFs give rise to a faithful generalization of standard instantiation procedures and discuss their relation to ABA. We present cv AF characterization results for argument and conclusion enforcement and show that strong equivalence can be characterized by so-called kernels. Our results show that both problems are tractable for cv AFs. We identify a tractable fragment for ABA by means of our cv AF enforcement and strong equivalence results. This fragment consists of so-called atomic ABAs with separated contraries. We show that this fragment has the full expressive power of ABA (Proposition 5.16 and Remark 6.29) We transfer our results to LPs and analogously identify a fragment for which enforcement and strong equivalence is tractable. |
| Researcher Affiliation | Academia | Anna Rapberger EMAIL Institute of Logic and Computation, TU Wien, Austria Markus Ulbricht EMAIL Department of Computer Science, Sca DS.AI, Leipzig University, Germany |
| Pseudocode | No | The paper describes formalisms, reductions, and proofs, but does not include any explicitly labeled 'Pseudocode' or 'Algorithm' blocks. The reductions (e.g., Reduction 4.4, Reduction 6.18, Reduction B.1) define the construction of ABA frameworks or cv AFs for theoretical proofs rather than presenting structured algorithmic steps. |
| Open Source Code | No | The paper makes no explicit statement about releasing source code for the methodology described, nor does it provide any links to a code repository or mention code in supplementary materials for its own contributions. |
| Open Datasets | No | The paper presents theoretical contributions regarding formal argumentation frameworks (ABA, AFs, cv AFs) and logic programs, focusing on their dynamics, enforcement, and strong equivalence. It does not conduct empirical studies with datasets; instead, it uses examples and theoretical constructions to illustrate concepts and proofs. |
| Dataset Splits | No | The paper focuses on theoretical contributions in formal argumentation and logic programming, and therefore does not involve empirical experiments with datasets. Consequently, there is no mention of dataset splits like training, validation, or test sets. |
| Hardware Specification | No | The paper is theoretical, presenting formalizations, complexity analyses, and proofs for argumentation frameworks and logic programs. It does not describe any experiments that would require specific hardware, and thus no hardware specifications are mentioned. |
| Software Dependencies | No | The paper is theoretical, focusing on formalisms and their properties within argumentation theory and logic programming. It does not describe any implemented systems or experiments that would necessitate listing specific software dependencies with version numbers. |
| Experiment Setup | No | The paper is theoretical and focuses on formal definitions, complexity results, and characterizations within abstract argumentation and logic programming. It does not describe any empirical experiments, and therefore no experimental setup details, including hyperparameters or system-level training settings, are provided. |