Abstract. The study of extension-based semantics within the seminal abstract argumentation model of Dung has largely focused on definitional, algorithmic and complexity issues. In contrast, matters relating to comparisons of representational limits, in particular, the extent to which given collections of extensions are expressible within the formalism, have been under-developed. As such, little is known concerning conditions under which a candidate set of subsets of arguments are "realistic" in the sense that they correspond to the extensions of some argumentation framework AF for a semantics of interest. In this paper we present a formal basis for examining extension-based semantics in terms of the sets of extensions that these may express within a single AF. We provide a number of characterization theorems which guarantee the existence of AFs whose set of extensions satisfy specific conditions and derive preliminary complexity results for decision problems that require such characterizations.

No abstract

dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are generalizations of Dung argumentation frameworks where arbitrary relationships among arguments can be formalized. This additional expressibility comes with the price of higher computational complexity, thus an understanding of potentially easier subclasses is essential. Compared to Dung argumentation frameworks, where several subclasses such as acyclic and symmetric frameworks are well understood, there has been no in-depth analysis for ADFs in such direction yet (with the notable exception of bipolar ADFs). In this work, we introduce certain subclasses of ADFs and investigate their properties. In particular, we show that for acyclic ADFs, the different semantics coincide. On the other hand, we show that the concept of symmetry is less powerful for ADFs and further restrictions are required to achieve results that are similar to the known ones for Dung's frameworks. A particular such subclass (support-free symmetric ADFs) turns out to be closely related to argumentation frameworks with collective attacks (SETAFs); we investigate this relation in detail and obtain as a by-product that even for SETAFs symmetry is less powerful than for AFs. We also discuss the role of oddlength cycles in the subclasses we have introduced. Finally, we analyse the expressiveness of the ADF subclasses we introduce in terms of signatures.

Argumentation is a major topic in the study of Artificial Intelligence. Since the first edition in 2015, advancements in solving (abstract) argumentation frameworks are assessed in competition events, similar to other closely related problem solving technologies. In this paper, we report about the design and results of the Second International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation, which has been jointly organized by TU Dresden (Germany), TU Wien (Austria), and the University of Genova (Italy), in affiliation with the 2017 International Workshop on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation. This second edition maintains some of the design choices made in the first event, e.g. the I/O formats, the basic reasoning problems, and the organization into tasks and tracks. At the same time, it introduces significant novelties, e.g. three additional prominent semantics, and an instance selection stage for classifying instances according to their empirical hardness. $ This paper is an extended and revised version of a paper presented at the First International Workshop on Systems and Algorithms for Formal Argumentation (Gaggl et al., 2016), which included the design of the event before the competition was run. A brief survey of the competition is to be published in AI Magazine (Gaggl et al., 2018).

No abstract