Preferred Arguments are Harder to Compute than Stable Extension
نویسندگان
چکیده
Based on an abstract framework for nonmonotonic reasoning, Bondarenko et at. have extended the logic programming semantics of admissible and preferred arguments to other nonmonotonic formalisms such as circumscription, autoepisternic logic and default logic. Although the new semantics have been tacitly assumed to mitigate the computational problems of nonmonotonic reasoning under the standard semantics of stable extensions, it seems questionable whether they improve the worst-case behaviour. As a matter of fact, we show that credulous reasoning under the new semantics in propositional logic programming and prepositional default logic has the same computational complexity as under the standard semantics. Furthermore, sceptical reasoning under the admissibility semantics is easier ~ since it is trivialised to monotonic reasoning. Finally, sceptical reasoning under the preferability semantics is harder than under the standard semantics.
منابع مشابه
Finding Admissible and Preferred Arguments Can be Very Hard
Bondarenko et al. have recently proposed an extension of the argumentation-theoretic semantics of admissible and preferred arguments, originally proposed for logic programming only, to a number of other nonmonotonic reasoning formalisms. In this paper we analyse the computational complexity of credulous and sceptical reasoning under the semantics of admissible and preferred arguments for (the p...
متن کاملCEGARTIX v2017-3-13: A SAT-Based Counter-Example Guided Argumentation Reasoning Tool
We present CEGARTIX, version 2017-3-13, for the International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA) 2017. Main changes are the addition of support for more reasoning tasks, relying on variations of existing Boolean encodings. The tool CEGARTIX is now capable of deciding credulous and skeptical acceptance, and enumeration of all (or up to a pre-specified bound) extensions ...
متن کاملArgumentation and graph properties
Argumentation theory is an area of interdisciplinary research that is suitable to characterise several diverse situations of reasoning and judgement in real world practices and challenges. In the discipline of Artificial Intelligence, argumentation is formalised by reasoning models based on building and evaluation of interacting arguments. In this argumentation framework, the semantics of accep...
متن کاملComputing Stable and Preferred Extensions of Dynamic Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
Bipolar argumentation frameworks (BAFs) extend Dung’s argumentation frameworks to explicitly represent the notion of support between arguments, in addition to that of attack. BAFs can be profitably used to model disputes between two or more agents, with the aim of deciding the sets of arguments that should be accepted to support a point of view in a discussion. However, since new arguments, att...
متن کامل