argumentation frameworks (AFs) are one of the central formalisms in AI; equipped with a wide range of semantics, they have proven useful in several application domains. In the thesis we want to complete and extend the recent study on expressiveness of argumentation semantics and use these and other theoretical results for implementations of reasoning tasks in AFs. Moreover, we plan to utilize results on realizability in dynamic scenarios of abstract argumentation, such as revision of argumentation frameworks. Hereby, the knowledge of which extensions can occur together is of central interest when trying to achieve a certain outcome. In other words, the ultimate goal of the thesis is to gain theoretical insights on argumentation semantics in order to employ them in practically efficient reasoning systems for both the evaluation and evolution of AFs.

argumentation frameworks (AFs) provide the basis for various reasoning problems in the area of Artificial Intelligence. Efficient evaluation of AFs has thus been identified as an important research challenge. So far, implemented systems for evaluating AFs have either followed a straight-forward reduction-based approach or been limited to certain tractable classes of AFs. In this work, we present a generic approach for reasoning over AFs, based on the novel concept of complexity-sensitivity. Establishing the theoretical foundations of this approach, we derive several new complexity results for preferred, semi-stable and stage semantics which complement the current complexity landscape for abstract argumentation, providing further understanding on the sources of intractability of AF reasoning problems. The introduced generic framework exploits decision procedures for problems of lower complexity whenever possible. This allows, in particular, instantiations of the generic framework via harnessing in an iterative way current sophisticated Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solver technology for solving the considered AF reasoning problems. First experimental results show that the SAT-based instantiation of our novel approach outperforms existing systems.

dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are a powerful generalization of Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks. ADFs allow to model argumentation scenarios such that ADF semantics then provide interpretations of the scenarios. Among the considerable number of ADF semantics, the naive-based ones are built upon the fundamental concept of conflict-freeness. Intuitively, a three-valued interpretation of an ADF's statements is conflict-free iff all true statements can possibly be accepted, and all false statements cannot possibly be accepted. In this paper, we perform an exhaustive analysis of the computational complexity of naive-based semantics. The results are quite interesting, for some of them involve little-known classes of the so-called Boolean hierarchy (another hierarchy in between classes of the polynomial hierarchy). Furthermore in credulous and sceptical entailment, the complexity can be different depending on whether we check for truth or falsity of a specific statement.

Argumentation is an inherently dynamic process. Consequently, recent years have witnessed tremendous research efforts towards an understanding of how the seminal AGM theory of belief change can be applied to argumentation, in particular for Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). However, none of the attempts has yet succeeded in handling the natural situation where the revision of an AF is guaranteed to be representable by an AF as well. In this work, we present a generic solution to this problem which applies to many prominent I-maximal argumentation semantics. In order to prove a full representation theorem, we make use of recent advances in both areas of argumentation and belief change. In particular, we utilize the concepts of realizability in argumentation and the notion of compliance as used in Horn revision.

We study the problem of aggregation of Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks. Some operators for this aggregation have been proposed, as well as some rationality properties for this process. In this work we study the existing operators and new ones that we propose in light of the proposed properties, highlighting the fact that existing operators do not satisfy a lot of these properties. The conclusions are that on one hand none of the existing operators seem fully satisfactory, but on the other hand some of the properties proposed so far seem also too demanding.

Change in abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) is a very active topic. Especially, the problem of enforcing a set E of arguments, i.e., ensuring that E is an extension (or a subset of an extension) of a given AF F, has received a particular attention in the recent years. In this paper, we define a new family of enforcement operators, for which enforcement can be achieved by adding new arguments (and attacks) to F (as in previous approaches to enforcement), but also by questioning some attacks (and non-attacks) of F. This family includes previous enforcement operators, but also new ones for which the success of the enforcement operation is guaranteed. We show how the enforcement problem for the operators of the family can be modeled as a pseudo-Boolean optimization problem. Intensive experiments show that the method is practical and that it scales up well.

When a belief state is represented as a probability function P, the resulting belief state of the contraction of a sentence (belief) from the original belief state P can be given by the probabilistic version of the Harper Identity. Specifically, the result of contracting P by a sentence h is taken to be the mixture of two states: the original state P, and the resultant state P* h of revising P by the negation of h. What proportion of P and P* h should be used in this mixture remains an open issue and is largely ignored in literature. In this paper, we first classify different belief states by their stability, and then exploit the quantitative nature of probabilities and combine it with the basic ideas of argumentation theory to determine the mixture proportions. We, therefore, propose a novel approach to probabilistic belief contraction using argumentation.

In this paper we combine two of the most important areas of knowledge representation, namely belief revision and (abstract) argumentation. More precisely, we show how AGM-style expansion and revision operators can be defined for Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). Our approach is based on a reformulation of the original AGM postulates for revision in terms of monotonic consequence relations for AFs. The latter are defined via a new family of logics, called Dung logics, which satisfy the important property that ordinary equivalence in these logics coincides with strong equivalence for the respective argumentation semantics. Based on these logics we define expansion as usual via intersection of models. We show the existence of such operators. This is far from trivial and requires to study realizability in the context of Dung logics. We then study revision operators. We show why standard approaches based on a distance measure on models do not work for AFs and present an operator satisfying all postulates for a specific Dung logic.

The paper develops a formal theory of the degree of justification of arguments, which relies solely on the structure of an argumentation framework. The theory is based on a generalisation of Dung's notion of acceptability, making it sensitive to the numbers of attacks and counter-attacks on arguments. Graded generalisations of argumentation semantics are then obtained and studied. The theory is applied by showing how it can arbitrate between competing preferred extensions and how it captures a specific form of accrual in instantiated argumentation.

We develop a formal model for representing such dialogues, and introduce FO A -ATL, a first-order extension of alternating-time logic, for expressing the interplay of strategic and argumentation-theoretic properties. This setting is investigated with respect to the model checking problem, by means of a suitable notion of bisimulation. This notion of bisimulation is also used to shed light on how static properties of argumentation frameworks influence their dynamic behaviour.