{"type":"ScholarlyArticle","title":"Efficient Computation of Extensions for Dynamic Abstract Argumentation Frameworks: An Incremental Approach","authors":[{"name":"Gianvincenzo Alfano","slug":"gianvincenzo-alfano","given":"Gianvincenzo","family":"Alfano","affiliation":"Department of Informatics, Modeling, Electronics and System Engineering , University of Calabria , Italy"},{"name":"Sergio Greco","slug":"sergio-greco","given":"Sergio","family":"Greco","affiliation":"Department of Informatics, Modeling, Electronics and System Engineering , University of Calabria , Italy"},{"name":"Francesco Parisi","slug":"francesco-parisi","given":"Francesco","family":"Parisi","affiliation":"Department of Informatics, Modeling, Electronics and System Engineering , University of Calabria , Italy"}],"abstract":"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. \r\nIn 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.","doi":"10.24963/ijcai.2017/8","url":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2017/8","pdf":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2017/0008.pdf","markdown":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2017/8.md","bibtex":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2017/bibtex/8","volume":{"slug":"2017","title":"Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"IJCAI 2017","url":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2017/","year":2017,"location":"Melbourne, Australia","dates":"19-25 August 2017","editors":"Carles Sierra","isbn":"978-0-9992411-0-3","publisher":"International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization","doi_prefix":"10.24963/ijcai.2017"},"section":"Agent-based and Multi-agent Systems","track":"Main track","number":8,"pages":{"first":49,"last":55},"keywords":["Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Logic: Computational models of Argument","Agent-based and Multi-agent Systems: Agreement Technologies: Argumentation"],"videos":[],"references":[{"position":1,"raw":"[Amgoud and Vesic, 2012] Leila Amgoud and Srdjan Vesic. Revising option status in argument-based decision sys- tems. J. Log. Comput., 22(5):1019-1058, 2012.","title":"Leila Amgoud and Srdjan Vesic. Revising option status in argument-based decision systems","authors":"Vesic Amgoud","year":"2012","venue":"J. Log. Comput","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":2,"raw":"[Baroni et al., 2011] Pietro Baroni, Martin Caminada, and Massimiliano Giacomin. An introduction to argumen- tation semantics. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(4):365-410, 2011.","title":"An introduction to argumentation semantics","authors":"Pietro Baroni, Martin Caminada, Massimiliano Giacomin","year":"2011","venue":"The Knowledge Engineering Review","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":3,"raw":"[Baroni et al., 2014a] Pietro Baroni, Guido Boella, Federico Cerutti, Massimiliano Giacomin, Leendert W. N. van der Torre, and Serena Villata. On the input/output behavior of argumentation frameworks. AI, 217:144-197, 2014.","title":"On the input/output behavior of argumentation frameworks","authors":"Baroni","year":"2014","venue":"AI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":4,"raw":"[Baroni et al., 2014b] Pietro Baroni, Massimiliano Gia- comin, and Beishui Liao. On topology-related properties of abstract argumentation semantics. A correction and ex- tension to dynamics of argumentation systems: A division- based method. AI, 212:104-115, 2014.","title":"On topology-related properties of abstract argumentation semantics. A correction and extension to dynamics of argumentation systems: A divisionbased method","authors":"Baroni","year":"2014","venue":"AI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":5,"raw":"[Baumann and Brewka, 2010] Ringo Baumann and Gerhard Brewka. Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforc- ing and monotonicity results. In COMMA, pages 75-86, 2010.","title":"Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results","authors":"Brewka Baumann, Ringo Baumann, Gerhard Brewka","year":"2010","venue":"COMMA","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":6,"raw":"[Baumann, 2011] Ringo Baumann. Splitting an argumenta- tion framework. In LPNMR, pages 40-53, 2011.","title":"Splitting an argumentation framework","authors":"Ringo Baumann, Baumann","year":"2011","venue":"LPNMR","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":7,"raw":"[Baumann, 2012] Ringo Baumann. Normal and strong ex- pansion equivalence for argumentation frameworks. AI, 193:18-44, 2012.","title":"Normal and strong expansion equivalence for argumentation frameworks","authors":"Ringo Baumann, Baumann","year":"2012","venue":"AI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":8,"raw":"[Baumann, 2014] Ringo Baumann. Context-free and context-sensitive kernels: Update and deletion equivalence in abstract argumentation. In ECAI, pages 63-68, 2014.","title":"Context-free and context-sensitive kernels: Update and deletion equivalence in abstract argumentation","authors":"Ringo Baumann, Baumann","year":"2014","venue":"ECAI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":9,"raw":"[Bench-Capon and Dunne, 2007] Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon and Paul E. Dunne. Argumentation in artificial intelli- gence. AI, 171(1015):619 -641, 2007.","title":"Argumentation in artificial intelligence","authors":"J M Trevor, Paul E Bench-Capon, Dunne","year":"1015","venue":"AI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":10,"raw":"[Bisquert et al., 2013] Pierre Bisquert, Claudette Cayrol, Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr, and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. Characterizing change in abstract ar- gumentation systems. In Trends in Belief Revision and Ar- gumentation Dynamics, volume 48, pages 75-102. 2013.","title":"Characterizing change in abstract argumentation systems","authors":"Bisquert","year":"2013","venue":"Trends in Belief Revision and Argumentation Dynamics","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":11,"raw":"[Bistarelli et al., 2016] Stefano Bistarelli, Fabio Rossi, and Francesco Santini. ConArg: A tool for classical and weighted argumentation. In COMMA, 2016.","title":"ConArg: A tool for classical and weighted argumentation","authors":"Stefano Bistarelli, Fabio Rossi, Francesco Santini","year":"2016","venue":"COMMA","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":12,"raw":"[Boella et al., 2009a] Guido Boella, Souhila Kaci, and Leen- dert W. N. van der Torre. Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Abstraction principles and the grounded extension. In ECSQARU, pages 107-118, 2009.","title":"Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Abstraction principles and the grounded extension","authors":"Boella","year":"2009","venue":"ECSQARU","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":13,"raw":"[Boella et al., 2009b] Guido Boella, Souhila Kaci, and Leen- dert W. N. van der Torre. Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Attack refinement and the grounded ex- tension. In ArgMAS Workshop, pages 150-159, 2009.","title":"Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Attack refinement and the grounded extension","authors":"Boella","year":"2009","venue":"ArgMAS Workshop","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":14,"raw":"[Cayrol et al., 2008] Claudette Cayrol, Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr, and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. Revision of an argumentation system. In KR, pages 124-134, 2008.","title":"Claudette Cayrol, Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr, and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. Revision of an argumentation system","authors":"Cayrol","year":"2008","venue":null,"doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":15,"raw":"[Cayrol et al., 2010] Claudette Cayrol, Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr, and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument. JAIR, 38:49-84, 2010.","title":"Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument","authors":"Cayrol","year":"2010","venue":"JAIR","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":16,"raw":"[Charwat et al., 2015] Günther Charwat, Wolfgang Dvorák, Sarah Alice Gaggl, Johannes Peter Wallner, and Stefan Woltran. Methods for solving reasoning problems in ab- stract argumentation -A survey. AI, 220:28-63, 2015.","title":"Methods for solving reasoning problems in abstract argumentation -A survey","authors":"Charwat","year":"2015","venue":"AI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":17,"raw":"[Dung, 1995] Phan Minh Dung. On the acceptability of ar- guments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic rea- soning, logic programming and n-person games. AI, 77(2):321-358, 1995.","title":"On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games","authors":"Phan Minh, Dung","year":"1995","venue":"AI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":18,"raw":"[Dunne and Wooldridge, 2009] Paul E. Dunne and Michael Wooldridge. Complexity of abstract argumentation. In Ar- gumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pages 85-104. 2009.","title":"Complexity of abstract argumentation","authors":"Paul E Dunne, Michael Wooldridge","year":"2009","venue":"Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":19,"raw":"[Dunne, 2009] Paul E. Dunne. The computational complex- ity of ideal semantics. AI, 173(18):1559-1591, 2009.","title":"The computational complexity of ideal semantics","authors":"Paul E Dunne","year":"2009","venue":"AI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":20,"raw":"[Dvorák et al., 2014] Wolfgang Dvorák, Matti Järvisalo, Jo- hannes Peter Wallner, and Stefan Woltran. Complexity- sensitive decision procedures for abstract argumentation. AI, 206:53-78, 2014.","title":"Complexitysensitive decision procedures for abstract argumentation","authors":"Dvorák","year":"2014","venue":"AI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":21,"raw":"[Falappa et al., 2011] Marcelo A. Falappa, Alejandro Javier Garcia, Gabriele Kern-Isberner, and Guillermo Ricardo Simari. On the evolving relation between belief revision and argumentation. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(1):35-43, 2011.","title":"On the evolving relation between belief revision and argumentation","authors":"Marcelo A Falappa, Alejandro Javier Garcia, Gabriele Kern-Isberner, Guillermo Ricardo Simari","year":"2011","venue":"The Knowledge Engineering Review","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":22,"raw":"[Gaggl and Manthey, 2015] Sarah Alice Gaggl and Norbert Manthey. ASPARTIX-D ready for the competition, 2015.","title":"ASPARTIX-D ready for the competition","authors":"Alice Sarah, Norbert Gaggl, Manthey","year":"2015","venue":null,"doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":23,"raw":"[Greco and Parisi, 2016a] Sergio Greco and Francesco Parisi. Efficient computation of deterministic extensions for dynamic abstract argumentation frameworks. In ECAI, pages 1668-1669, 2016.","title":"Efficient computation of deterministic extensions for dynamic abstract argumentation frameworks","authors":"Parisi Greco, Sergio Greco, Francesco Parisi","year":"2016","venue":"ECAI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":24,"raw":"[Greco and Parisi, 2016b] Sergio Greco and Francesco Parisi. Incremental computation of deterministic exten- sions for dynamic argumentation frameworks. In JELIA, pages 288-304, 2016.","title":"Incremental computation of deterministic extensions for dynamic argumentation frameworks","authors":"Parisi Greco, Sergio Greco, Francesco Parisi","year":"2016","venue":"JELIA","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":25,"raw":"[Kökciyan et al., 2016] Nadin Kökciyan, Nefise Yaglikci, and Pinar Yolum. Argumentation for resolving privacy disputes in online social networks: (extended abstract). In AAMAS, pages 1361-1362, 2016.","title":"Argumentation for resolving privacy disputes in online social networks","authors":"Nadin Kökciyan, Nefise Yaglikci, Pinar Yolum","year":"2016","venue":"AAMAS","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":26,"raw":"[Lagniez et al., 2015] Jean-Marie Lagniez, Emmanuel Lonca, and Jean-Guy Mailly. CoQuiAAS: A constraint- based quick abstract argumentation solver. In ICTAI, pages 928-935, 2015.","title":"CoQuiAAS: A constraintbased quick abstract argumentation solver","authors":"Lagniez","year":"2015","venue":"ICTAI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":27,"raw":"[Liao et al., 2011] Bei Shui Liao, Li Jin, and Robert C. Koons. Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division- based method. AI, 175(11):1790-1814, 2011.","title":"Dynamics of argumentation systems: A divisionbased method","authors":"Shui Bei, Li Liao, Robert C Jin, Koons","year":"2011","venue":"AI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":28,"raw":"[Modgil and Prakken, 2011] Sanjay Modgil and Henry Prakken. Revisiting preferences and argumentation. In IJCAI, pages 1021-1026, 2011.","title":"Revisiting preferences and argumentation","authors":"Prakken Modgil, Sanjay Modgil, Henry Prakken","year":"2011","venue":"IJCAI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":"/proceedings/2011/175"},{"position":29,"raw":"[Oikarinen and Woltran, 2011] Emilia Oikarinen and Stefan Woltran. Characterizing strong equivalence for argumen- tation frameworks. AI, 175(14-15):1985-2009, 2011.","title":"Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks","authors":"Woltran Oikarinen, Emilia Oikarinen, Stefan Woltran","year":"2011","venue":"AI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":30,"raw":"[Rahwan and Simari, 2009] Iyad Rahwan and Guillermo R. Simari. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 1st edition, 2009.","title":"Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence","authors":"Simari Rahwan","year":"2009","venue":null,"doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null}],"license_note":"Copyright International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence."}