{"type":"ScholarlyArticle","title":"Controllability of Control Argumentation Frameworks","authors":[{"name":"Andreas Niskanen","slug":"andreas-niskanen","given":"Andreas","family":"Niskanen","affiliation":"HIIT , Department of Computer Science , University of Helsinki , Finland"},{"name":"Daniel Neugebauer","slug":"daniel-neugebauer","given":"Daniel","family":"Neugebauer","affiliation":"Institut für Informatik , Heinrich-Heine Universität Düsseldorf , Germany"},{"name":"Matti Järvisalo","slug":"matti-jarvisalo","given":"Matti","family":"Järvisalo","affiliation":"HIIT , Department of Computer Science , University of Helsinki , Finland"}],"abstract":"Control argumentation frameworks (CAFs) allow for modeling uncertainties inherent in various argumentative settings. We establish a complete computational complexity map of the central computational problem of controllability in CAFs for five key semantics. We also develop Boolean satisfiability based counterexample-guided abstraction refinement algorithms and direct encodings of controllability as quantified Boolean formulas, and empirically evaluate their scalability on a range of NP-hard variants of controllability.","doi":"10.24963/ijcai.2020/257","url":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2020/257","pdf":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2020/0257.pdf","markdown":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2020/257.md","bibtex":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2020/bibtex/257","volume":{"slug":"2020","title":"Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence","short_title":"IJCAI 2020","url":"https://ijcai.org/proceedings/2020/","year":2020,"location":"Yokohama","dates":"January 2021 (postponed from 11-17 July 2020)","editors":"Christian Bessiere","isbn":"978-0-9992411-6-5","publisher":"International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization","doi_prefix":"10.24963/ijcai.2020"},"section":"Knowledge Representation and Reasoning","track":"Main track","number":257,"pages":{"first":1855,"last":1861},"keywords":["Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Computational Models of Argument","Constraints and SAT: SAT: : Solvers and Applications","Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Computational Complexity of Reasoning"],"videos":[{"label":"Video","url":"https://videos.ijcai20.org/24841/file_24841.m3u8","length_sec":278,"provider":"hls"}],"references":[{"position":1,"raw":"[Arora and Barak, 2009] S. Arora and B. Barak. Computa- tional Complexity: A Modern Approach. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2009.","title":"Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach","authors":"S Arora, B Barak","year":"2009","venue":null,"doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":2,"raw":"[Audemard and Simon, 2018] G. Audemard and L. Simon. On the Glucose SAT solver. Int. J. Artif. Intell. T., 27(1):1840001:1-1840001:25, 2018.","title":"On the Glucose SAT solver","authors":"G Audemard, L Simon","year":"2018","venue":"Int. J. Artif. Intell. T","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":3,"raw":"[Baroni et al., 2018] P. Baroni, M. Caminada, and M. Gia- comin. Abstract argumentation frameworks and their se- mantics. In Handbook of Formal Argumentation, chap- ter 4, pages 159-236. College Publications, 2018.","title":"Abstract argumentation frameworks and their semantics","authors":"P Baroni, M Caminada, M Giacomin","year":"2018","venue":"Handbook of Formal Argumentation, chapter 4","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":4,"raw":"[Baumann and Brewka, 2010] R. Baumann and G. Brewka. Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In COMMA, volume 216 of FAIA, pages 75-86. IOS Press, 2010.","title":"Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results","authors":"R Baumann, G Brewka","year":"2010","venue":"COMMA","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":5,"raw":"[Baumann, 2012] R. Baumann. What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation. In ECAI, volume 242 of FAIA, pages 127-132. IOS Press, 2012.","title":"What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation","authors":"R Baumann","year":"2012","venue":"ECAI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":6,"raw":"[Baumeister et al., 2018a] D. Baumeister, D. Neugebauer, and J. Rothe. Credulous and skeptical acceptance in in- complete argumentation frameworks. In COMMA, volume 305 of FAIA, pages 181-192. IOS Press, 2018.","title":"Credulous and skeptical acceptance in incomplete argumentation frameworks","authors":"Baumeister","year":"2018","venue":"COMMA","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":7,"raw":"[Baumeister et al., 2018b] D. Baumeister, D. Neugebauer, J. Rothe, and H. Schadrack. Verification in incomplete argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell., 264:1-26, 2018.","title":"Verification in incomplete argumentation frameworks","authors":"Baumeister","year":"2018","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":8,"raw":"[Besnard and Doutre, 2004] P. Besnard and S. Doutre. Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments. In NMR, pages 59-64, 2004.","title":"Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments","authors":"P Besnard, S Doutre","year":"2004","venue":"NMR","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":9,"raw":"[Booth et al., 2013] R. Booth, S. Kaci, T. Rienstra, and L. van der Torre. A logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation. In SUM, volume 8078 of LNCS, pages 148-161. Springer, 2013.","title":"A logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation","authors":"R Booth, S Kaci, T Rienstra, L Van Der Torre","year":"2013","venue":"SUM","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":10,"raw":"[Cayrol et al., 2010] C. Cayrol, F. Dupin de Saint-Cyr, and M. Lagasquie-Schiex. Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 38:49-84, 2010.","title":"Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument","authors":"C Cayrol, F Dupin De Saint-Cyr, M Lagasquie-Schiex","year":"2010","venue":"J. Artif. Intell. Res","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":11,"raw":"[Clarke et al., 2003] E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu, and H. Veith. Counterexample-guided abstrac- tion refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM, 50(5):752-794, 2003.","title":"Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking","authors":"E M Clarke, O Grumberg, S Jha, Y Lu, H Veith","year":"2003","venue":"J. ACM","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":12,"raw":"[Clarke et al., 2004] E.M. Clarke, A. Gupta, and O. Strich- man. SAT-based counterexample-guided abstraction re- finement. IEEE T-CAD, 23(7):1113-1123, 2004.","title":"SAT-based counterexample-guided abstraction refinement","authors":"E M Clarke, A Gupta, O Strichman","year":"2004","venue":"IEEE T-CAD","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":13,"raw":"[Coste-Marquis et al., 2007] S. Coste-Marquis, C. Devred, S. Konieczny, M. Lagasquie-Schiex, and P. Marquis. On the merging of Dung's argumentation systems. Artif. In- tell., 171(10-15):730-753, 2007.","title":"On the merging of Dung's argumentation systems","authors":"S Coste-Marquis, C Devred, S Konieczny, M Lagasquie-Schiex, P Marquis","year":"2007","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":14,"raw":"[Coste-Marquis et al., 2014] S. Coste-Marquis, S. Konieczny, J. Mailly, and P. Marquis. On the re- vision of argumentation systems: Minimal change of arguments statuses. In KR, pages 52-61. AAAI Press, 2014.","title":"On the revision of argumentation systems: Minimal change of arguments statuses","authors":"S Coste-Marquis, S Konieczny, J Mailly, P Marquis","year":"2014","venue":null,"doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":15,"raw":"[Coste-Marquis et al., 2015] S. Coste-Marquis, S. Konieczny, J. Mailly, and P. Marquis. Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem. In IJCAI, pages 2876-2882. AAAI Press, 2015.","title":"Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem","authors":"Coste-Marquis","year":"2015","venue":"IJCAI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":"/proceedings/2015/407"},{"position":16,"raw":"[de Saint-Cyr et al., 2016] F. Dupin de Saint-Cyr, P. Bis- quert, C. Cayrol, and M. Lagasquie-Schiex. Argumen- tation update in YALLA (Yet Another Logic Language for Argumentation). Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, 75:57-92, 2016.","title":"Argumentation update in YALLA (Yet Another Logic Language for Argumentation)","authors":"F Dupin De Saint-Cyr, P Bisquert, C Cayrol, M Lagasquie-Schiex","year":"2016","venue":"Int. J. Approx. Reasoning","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":17,"raw":"[Diller et al., 2018] M. Diller, A. Haret, T. Linsbichler, S. Rümmele, and S. Woltran. An extension-based ap- proach to belief revision in abstract argumentation. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, 93:395-423, 2018.","title":"An extension-based approach to belief revision in abstract argumentation","authors":"M Diller, A Haret, T Linsbichler, S Rümmele, S Woltran","year":"2018","venue":"Int. J. Approx. Reasoning","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":18,"raw":"[Dimopoulos and Torres, 1996] Y. Dimopoulos and A. Tor- res. Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theor. Comput. Sci., 170(1-2):209-244, 1996.","title":"Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories","authors":"Y Dimopoulos, A Torres","year":"1996","venue":"Theor. Comput. Sci","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":19,"raw":"[Dimopoulos et al., 2018] Y. Dimopoulos, J. Mailly, and P. Moraitis. Control argumentation frameworks. In AAAI, pages 4678-4685. AAAI Press, 2018.","title":"Control argumentation frameworks","authors":"Y Dimopoulos, J Mailly, P Moraitis","year":"2018","venue":"AAAI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":20,"raw":"[Dimopoulos et al., 2019] Y. Dimopoulos, J. Mailly, and P. Moraitis. Argumentation-based negotiation with incom- plete opponent profiles. In AAMAS, pages 1252-1260.","title":"Argumentation-based negotiation with incomplete opponent profiles","authors":"Y Dimopoulos, J Mailly, P Moraitis","year":null,"venue":"AAMAS","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":21,"raw":"IFAAMAS, 2019.","title":null,"authors":"Ifaamas","year":"2019","venue":null,"doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":22,"raw":"[Doutre and Mailly, 2018] S. Doutre and J. Mailly. Con- straints and changes: A survey of abstract argumentation dynamics. Argument & Computation, 9(3):223-248, 2018.","title":"Constraints and changes: A survey of abstract argumentation dynamics","authors":"S Doutre, J Mailly","year":"2018","venue":"Argument & Computation","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":23,"raw":"[Doutre et al., 2014] S. Doutre, A. Herzig, and L. Perrussel. A dynamic logic framework for abstract argumentation. In KR, pages 62-71. AAAI Press, 2014.","title":"A dynamic logic framework for abstract argumentation","authors":"S Doutre, A Herzig, L Perrussel","year":"2014","venue":null,"doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":24,"raw":"[Dung, 1995] P.M. Dung. On the acceptability of argu- ments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reason- ing, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell., 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":"P M Dung","year":"1995","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":25,"raw":"[Dunne and Bench-Capon, 2002] P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon. Coherence in finite argument systems. Ar- tif. Intell., 141(1/2):187-203, 2002.","title":"Coherence in finite argument systems","authors":"P E Dunne, T J M Bench-Capon","year":"2002","venue":"Artif. Intell","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":26,"raw":"[Dvorák and Dunne, 2018] W. Dvorák and P.E. Dunne. Computational problems in formal argumentation and their complexity. In Handbook of Formal Argumentation, chapter 13, pages 631-687. College Publications, 2018.","title":"Computational problems in formal argumentation and their complexity","authors":"W Dvorák, P E Dunne","year":"2018","venue":"Handbook of Formal Argumentation","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":27,"raw":"[Heule et al., 2015] M. Heule, M. Järvisalo, F. Lonsing, M. Seidl, and A. Biere. Clause elimination for SAT and QSAT. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 53:127-168, 2015.","title":"Clause elimination for SAT and QSAT","authors":"M Heule, M Järvisalo, F Lonsing, M Seidl, A Biere","year":"2015","venue":"J. Artif. Intell. Res","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":28,"raw":"[Niskanen et al., 2020] A. Niskanen, D. Neugebauer, M. Järvisalo, and J. Rothe. Deciding acceptance in incomplete argumentation frameworks. In AAAI. AAAI Press, 2020.","title":"Deciding acceptance in incomplete argumentation frameworks","authors":"A Niskanen, D Neugebauer, M Järvisalo, J Rothe","year":"2020","venue":"AAAI","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":29,"raw":"[Tentrup, 2019] L. Tentrup. CAQE and QuAbS: Abstrac- tion based QBF solvers. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 11(1):155-210, 2019.","title":"CAQE and QuAbS: Abstraction based QBF solvers","authors":"L Tentrup","year":"2019","venue":"Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null},{"position":30,"raw":"[Wallner et al., 2017] J.P. Wallner, A. Niskanen, and M. Järvisalo. Complexity results and algorithms for extension enforcement in abstract argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 60:1-40, 2017.","title":"Complexity results and algorithms for extension enforcement in abstract argumentation","authors":"J P Wallner, A Niskanen, M Järvisalo","year":"2017","venue":"J. Artif. Intell. Res","doi":null,"url":null,"internal_url":null}],"license_note":"Copyright International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence."}