Analyzing the impact of bounded degree constraints on computational complexity of argumentation frameworks
Year: 2025
Type: article
Abstract: This research explores the relationship between the bounded in-degree and out-degree of an argumentation framework and the computational complexity of the problems of Credulous Acceptance ( CredA ) and Skeptical Acceptance ( SkepA ) under preferred extensions. Researchers have studied the complexity of these problems when the in-degree ( p ) and out-degree ( q ) of the arguments are restricted to 2 . Despite this restriction, the computational complexities of CredA and SkepA persist. Based on these results, we presents new results that provide deeper insights into the impact of additional constraints on the argumentation framework. Specifically, we show that when “ p ” or “ q ” is restricted to 1 , both problems CredA and SkepA can be solved in polynomial time. Subsequently, we impose additional constraints on the argumentation framework by analyzing the quantities “ a ,” “ b ,” and “ c .” For an argumentation framework A F and all arguments “ x ” of A F , the parameter “ a ” indicates the maximum number of attackers that any argument “ x ” can have among all those that are not attacked by “ x ” A F , “ b ” indicates the maximum number of arguments that any argument “ x ” attacks among all those that do not attack “ x ”, and “ c ” denotes the maximum number of arguments that any argument “ x ” attacks among those that attack “ x ”. Surprisingly, even when all these quantities are restricted to 1 , the computational complexity of CredA persists. Furthermore, we explore the influence of symmetric attacks by fixing “ c ” to zero, while setting “ a ” and “
Source: Argument & Computation
Author: Mohammed Elaroussi
Institution: University of Béjaïa
Language: English
Subfield: Artificial Intelligence
Field: Computer Science
Domain: Physical Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $900
OpenAlex ID: W4407588399