Complexity of Abstract Argumentation under a Claim-Centric View


  • Wolfgang Dvořák TU Wien
  • Stefan Woltran TU Wien



Abstract argumentation frameworks have been introduced by Dung as part of an argumentation process, where arguments and conflicts are derived from a given knowledge base. It is solely this relation between arguments that is then used in order to identify acceptable sets of arguments. A final step concerns the acceptance status of particular statements by reviewing the actual contents of the acceptable arguments. Complexity analysis of abstract argumentation so far has neglected this final step and is concerned with argument names instead of their contents, i.e. their claims. As we outline in this paper, this is not only a slight deviation but can lead to different complexity results. We, therefore, give a comprehensive complexity analysis of abstract argumentation under a claim-centric view and analyse the four main decision problems under seven popular semantics. In addition, we also address the complexity of common sub-classes and introduce novel parameterisations – which exploit the nature of claims explicitly – along with fixed-parameter tractability results.




How to Cite

Dvořák, W., & Woltran, S. (2019). Complexity of Abstract Argumentation under a Claim-Centric View. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33(01), 2801-2808.



AAAI Technical Track: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning