Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) is a powerful structured argumentation formalism, but exact computation of extensions under stable semantics is intractable for large frameworks. We present the first Graph Neural Network (GNN) approach to approximate credulous acceptance in ABA. To leverage GNNs, we model ABA frameworks via a dependency graph representation encoding assumptions, claims and rules as nodes, with heterogeneous edge labels distinguishing support, derive and attack relations. We propose two GNN architectures - ABAGCN and ABAGAT - that stack residual heterogeneous convolution or attention layers, respectively, to learn node embeddings. Our models are trained on the ICCMA 2023 benchmark, augmented with synthetic ABAFs, with hyperparameters optimised via Bayesian search. Empirically, both ABAGCN and ABAGAT outperform a state-of-the-art GNN baseline that we adapt from the abstract argumentation literature, achieving a node-level F1 score of up to 0.71 on the ICCMA instances. Finally, we develop a sound polynomial time extension-reconstruction algorithm driven by our predictor: it reconstructs stable extensions with F1 above 0.85 on small ABAFs and maintains an F1 of about 0.58 on large frameworks. Our work opens new avenues for scalable approximate reasoning in structured argumentation.

Abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) provide a formal setting to analyze many forms of reasoning with conflicting information. While the expressiveness of general infinite AFs make them a tempting tool for modeling many kinds of reasoning scenarios, the computational intractability of solving infinite AFs limit their use, even in many theoretical applications. We investigate the complexity of computational problems related to infinite but finitary argumentations frameworks, that is, infinite AFs where each argument is attacked by only finitely many others. Our results reveal a surprising scenario. On one hand, we see that the assumption of being finitary does not automatically guarantee a drop in complexity. However, for the admissibility-based semantics, we find a remarkable combinatorial constraint which entails a dramatic decrease in complexity. We conclude that for many forms of reasoning, the finitary infinite AFs provide a natural setting for reasoning which balances well the competing goals of being expressive enough to be applied to many reasoning settings while being computationally tractable enough for the analysis within the framework to be useful.

Over the last decade, as we rely more on deep learning technologies to make critical decisions, concerns regarding their safety, reliability and interpretability have emerged. We introduce a novel Neural Argumentative Learning (NAL) architecture that integrates Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) with deep learning for image analysis. Our architecture consists of neural and symbolic components. The former segments and encodes images into facts using object-centric learning, while the latter applies ABA learning to develop ABA frameworks enabling predictions with images. Experiments on synthetic data show that the NAL architecture can be competitive with a state-of-the-art alternative.

The rule $\mathrm{Defeated}(x) \leftarrow \mathrm{Attacks}(y,x),\, \neg \, \mathrm{Defeated}(y)$, evaluated under the well-founded semantics (WFS), yields a unique 3-valued (skeptical) solution of an abstract argumentation framework (AF). An argument $x$ is defeated ($\mathrm{OUT}$) if there exists an undefeated argument $y$ that attacks it. For 2-valued (stable) solutions, this is the case iff $y$ is accepted ($\mathrm{IN}$), i.e., if all of $y$'s attackers are defeated. Under WFS, arguments that are neither accepted nor defeated are undecided ($\mathrm{UNDEC}$). As shown in prior work, well-founded solutions (a.k.a. grounded labelings) "explain themselves": The provenance of arguments is given by subgraphs (definable via regular path queries) rooted at the node of interest. This provenance is closely related to winning strategies of a two-player argumentation game. We present a novel approach for extending this provenance to stable AF solutions. Unlike grounded solutions, which can be constructed via a bottom-up alternating fixpoint procedure, stable models often involve non-deterministic choice as part of the search for models. Thus, the provenance of stable solutions is of a different nature, and reflects a more expressive generate & test paradigm. Our approach identifies minimal sets of critical attacks, pinpointing choices and assumptions made by a stable model. These critical attack edges provide additional insights into the provenance of an argument's status, combining well-founded derivation steps with choice steps. Our approach can be understood as a form of diagnosis that finds minimal "repairs" to an AF graph such that the well-founded solution of the repaired graph coincides with the desired stable model of the original AF graph.

Abstract argumentation is a popular toolkit for modeling, evaluating, and comparing arguments. Relationships between arguments are specified in argumentation frameworks (AFs), and conditions are placed on sets (extensions) of arguments that allow AFs to be evaluated. For more expressiveness, AFs are augmented with \emph{acceptance conditions} on directly interacting arguments or a constraint on the admissible sets of arguments, resulting in dialectic frameworks or constrained argumentation frameworks. In this paper, we consider flexible conditions for \emph{rejecting} an argument from an extension, which we call rejection conditions (RCs). On the technical level, we associate each argument with a specific logic program. We analyze the resulting complexity, including the structural parameter treewidth. Rejection AFs are highly expressive, giving rise to natural problems on higher levels of the polynomial hierarchy.

Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) is advocated as a unifying formalism for various forms of non-monotonic reasoning, including logic programming. It allows capturing defeasible knowledge, subject to argumentative debate. While, in much existing work, ABA frameworks are given up-front, in this paper we focus on the problem of automating their learning from background knowledge and positive/negative examples. Unlike prior work, we newly frame the problem in terms of brave reasoning under stable extensions for ABA. We present a novel algorithm based on transformation rules (such as Rote Learning, Folding, Assumption Introduction and Fact Subsumption) and an implementation thereof that makes use of Answer Set Programming. Finally, we compare our technique to state-of-the-art ILP systems that learn defeasible knowledge.

This paper continues an established line of research about the relations between argumentation theory, particularly assumption-based argumentation, and different kinds of logic programs. In particular, we extend known result of Caminada, Schultz and Toni by showing that assumption-based argumentation can represent not only normal logic programs, but also disjunctive logic programs and their extensions. For this, we consider some inference rules for disjunction that the core logic of the argumentation frameworks should respect, and show the correspondence to the handling of disjunctions in the heads of the logic programs' rules.

We propose a novel approach to logic-based learning which generates assumption-based argumentation (ABA) frameworks from positive and negative examples, using a given background knowledge. These ABA frameworks can be mapped onto logic programs with negation as failure that may be non-stratified. Whereas existing argumentation-based methods learn exceptions to general rules by interpreting the exceptions as rebuttal attacks, our approach interprets them as undercutting attacks. Our learning technique is based on the use of transformation rules, including some adapted from logic program transformation rules (notably folding) as well as others, such as rote learning and assumption introduction. We present a general strategy that applies the transformation rules in a suitable order to learn stratified frameworks, and we also propose a variant that handles the non-stratified case. We illustrate the benefits of our approach with a number of examples, which show that, on one hand, we are able to easily reconstruct other logic-based learning approaches and, on the other hand, we can work out in a very simple and natural way problems that seem to be hard for existing techniques.

We study the computational complexity of abstract argumentation semantics based on  weak admissibility, a recently introduced concept to deal with arguments of self-defeating  nature. Our results reveal that semantics based on weak admissibility are of much higher  complexity (under typical assumptions) compared to all argumentation semantics which  have been analysed in terms of complexity so far. In fact, we show PSPACE-completeness  of all non-trivial standard decision problems for weak-admissible based semantics. We then  investigate potential tractable fragments and show that restricting the frameworks under  consideration to certain graph-classes significantly reduces the complexity. We also show  that weak-admissibility based extensions can be computed by dividing the given graph into  its strongly connected components (SCCs). This technique ensures that the bottleneck  when computing extensions is the size of the largest SCC instead of the size of the graph  itself and therefore contributes to the search for fixed-parameter tractable implementations  for reasoning with weak admissibility. 

In many real-life situations that involve exchanges of arguments, individuals may differ on their assessment of which supports between the arguments are in fact justified, i.e., they put forward different support-relations. When confronted with such situations, we may wish to aggregate individuals' argumentation views on support-relations into a collective view, which is acceptable to the group. In this paper, we assume that under bipolar argumentation frameworks, individuals are equipped with a set of arguments and a set of attacks between arguments, but with possibly different support-relations. Using the methodology in social choice theory, we analyze what semantic properties of bipolar argumentation frameworks can be preserved by aggregation rules during the aggregation of support-relations.