Complexity Properties of Critical Sets of Arguments

Richard Booth, Martin Caminada, Paul Dunne, Mikolaj Podlaszewski, Iyad Rahwan

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

6 Citations (Scopus)
4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In an abstract argumentation framework, there are often multiple plausible ways to evaluate (or label) the status of each argument as accepted, rejected, or undecided. But often there exists a critical set of arguments whose status is sufficient to determine uniquely the status of every other argument. Once an agent has decided its position on a critical set of arguments, then essentially the entire framework has been evaluated. Likewise, once a group, e.g. a jury,
agrees on the status of a critical set of arguments, all of their different views over all other arguments are resolved. Thus, critical sets of arguments are important both for efficient evaluation by individual agents and for collective agreement by groups of such. To exploit this idea in practice, however, a number of computational questions must be considered. In particular, how much computational effort is needed to verify that a set is, indeed, a critical set or a minimal critical set. In this paper we determine exact bounds on the computational complexity of these and related questions. In addition
we provide similar analyses of issues: a concept closely related to critical set and derived in terms of (equivalence) classes of arguments related through "common" labelling behaviours.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationComputational Models of Argument
Subtitle of host publicationProceedings of COMMA 2014
EditorsSimon Parsons, Nir Oren, Chris Reed, Frederico Cerutti
Place of PublicationAmsterdam
PublisherIOS Press
Pages173-184
Number of pages11
Volume266
ISBN (Electronic)9781614994367
ISBN (Print)9781614994350
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Computational
Juries
Labeling
Evaluation
Equivalence
Computational Complexity
Argumentation

Keywords

  • argumentation frameworks
  • labelling schemes
  • computational complexity

Cite this

Booth, R., Caminada, M., Dunne, P., Podlaszewski, M., & Rahwan, I. (2014). Complexity Properties of Critical Sets of Arguments. In S. Parsons, N. Oren, C. Reed, & F. Cerutti (Eds.), Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2014 (Vol. 266, pp. 173-184). Amsterdam: IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-436-7-173

Complexity Properties of Critical Sets of Arguments. / Booth, Richard; Caminada, Martin; Dunne, Paul; Podlaszewski, Mikolaj; Rahwan, Iyad.

Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2014. ed. / Simon Parsons; Nir Oren; Chris Reed; Frederico Cerutti. Vol. 266 Amsterdam : IOS Press, 2014. p. 173-184.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Booth, R, Caminada, M, Dunne, P, Podlaszewski, M & Rahwan, I 2014, Complexity Properties of Critical Sets of Arguments. in S Parsons, N Oren, C Reed & F Cerutti (eds), Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2014. vol. 266, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 173-184. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-436-7-173
Booth R, Caminada M, Dunne P, Podlaszewski M, Rahwan I. Complexity Properties of Critical Sets of Arguments. In Parsons S, Oren N, Reed C, Cerutti F, editors, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2014. Vol. 266. Amsterdam: IOS Press. 2014. p. 173-184 https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-436-7-173
Booth, Richard ; Caminada, Martin ; Dunne, Paul ; Podlaszewski, Mikolaj ; Rahwan, Iyad. / Complexity Properties of Critical Sets of Arguments. Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2014. editor / Simon Parsons ; Nir Oren ; Chris Reed ; Frederico Cerutti. Vol. 266 Amsterdam : IOS Press, 2014. pp. 173-184
@inproceedings{6988e590ad7340e4b290d913d8fb88b1,
title = "Complexity Properties of Critical Sets of Arguments",
abstract = "In an abstract argumentation framework, there are often multiple plausible ways to evaluate (or label) the status of each argument as accepted, rejected, or undecided. But often there exists a critical set of arguments whose status is sufficient to determine uniquely the status of every other argument. Once an agent has decided its position on a critical set of arguments, then essentially the entire framework has been evaluated. Likewise, once a group, e.g. a jury,agrees on the status of a critical set of arguments, all of their different views over all other arguments are resolved. Thus, critical sets of arguments are important both for efficient evaluation by individual agents and for collective agreement by groups of such. To exploit this idea in practice, however, a number of computational questions must be considered. In particular, how much computational effort is needed to verify that a set is, indeed, a critical set or a minimal critical set. In this paper we determine exact bounds on the computational complexity of these and related questions. In additionwe provide similar analyses of issues: a concept closely related to critical set and derived in terms of (equivalence) classes of arguments related through {"}common{"} labelling behaviours.",
keywords = "argumentation frameworks, labelling schemes, computational complexity",
author = "Richard Booth and Martin Caminada and Paul Dunne and Mikolaj Podlaszewski and Iyad Rahwan",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.3233/978-1-61499-436-7-173",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781614994350",
volume = "266",
pages = "173--184",
editor = "Simon Parsons and Nir Oren and Chris Reed and Frederico Cerutti",
booktitle = "Computational Models of Argument",
publisher = "IOS Press",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Complexity Properties of Critical Sets of Arguments

AU - Booth, Richard

AU - Caminada, Martin

AU - Dunne, Paul

AU - Podlaszewski, Mikolaj

AU - Rahwan, Iyad

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - In an abstract argumentation framework, there are often multiple plausible ways to evaluate (or label) the status of each argument as accepted, rejected, or undecided. But often there exists a critical set of arguments whose status is sufficient to determine uniquely the status of every other argument. Once an agent has decided its position on a critical set of arguments, then essentially the entire framework has been evaluated. Likewise, once a group, e.g. a jury,agrees on the status of a critical set of arguments, all of their different views over all other arguments are resolved. Thus, critical sets of arguments are important both for efficient evaluation by individual agents and for collective agreement by groups of such. To exploit this idea in practice, however, a number of computational questions must be considered. In particular, how much computational effort is needed to verify that a set is, indeed, a critical set or a minimal critical set. In this paper we determine exact bounds on the computational complexity of these and related questions. In additionwe provide similar analyses of issues: a concept closely related to critical set and derived in terms of (equivalence) classes of arguments related through "common" labelling behaviours.

AB - In an abstract argumentation framework, there are often multiple plausible ways to evaluate (or label) the status of each argument as accepted, rejected, or undecided. But often there exists a critical set of arguments whose status is sufficient to determine uniquely the status of every other argument. Once an agent has decided its position on a critical set of arguments, then essentially the entire framework has been evaluated. Likewise, once a group, e.g. a jury,agrees on the status of a critical set of arguments, all of their different views over all other arguments are resolved. Thus, critical sets of arguments are important both for efficient evaluation by individual agents and for collective agreement by groups of such. To exploit this idea in practice, however, a number of computational questions must be considered. In particular, how much computational effort is needed to verify that a set is, indeed, a critical set or a minimal critical set. In this paper we determine exact bounds on the computational complexity of these and related questions. In additionwe provide similar analyses of issues: a concept closely related to critical set and derived in terms of (equivalence) classes of arguments related through "common" labelling behaviours.

KW - argumentation frameworks

KW - labelling schemes

KW - computational complexity

U2 - 10.3233/978-1-61499-436-7-173

DO - 10.3233/978-1-61499-436-7-173

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 9781614994350

VL - 266

SP - 173

EP - 184

BT - Computational Models of Argument

A2 - Parsons, Simon

A2 - Oren, Nir

A2 - Reed, Chris

A2 - Cerutti, Frederico

PB - IOS Press

CY - Amsterdam

ER -