Predictive models and abstract argumentation: the case of high-complexity semantics

Mauro Vallati, Federico Cerutti, Massimiliano Giacomin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In this paper we describe how predictive models can be positively exploited in abstract argumentation. In particular, we present two main sets of results. On one side, we show that predictive models are effective for performing algorithm selection in order to determine which approach is better to enumerate the preferred extensions of a given argumentation framework. On the other side, we show that predictive models predict significant aspects of the solution to the preferred extensions enumeration problem. By exploiting an extensive set of argumentation framework features— i.e., values that summarise a potentially important property of a framework—the proposed approach is able to provide an accurate prediction about which algorithm would be faster on a given problem instance, as well as of the structure of the solution, where the complete knowledge of such structure would require a computationally hard problem to be solved. Improving the ability of existing argumentation-based systems to support human sense-making and decision processes is just one of the possible exploitations of such knowledge obtained in an inexpensive way.
LanguageEnglish
Article numbere6
Pages1-23
Number of pages23
JournalKnowledge Engineering Review
Volume34
Early online date18 Apr 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

Semantics

Cite this

@article{0bec116dbc7343b19fbbe535a33b4024,
title = "Predictive models and abstract argumentation: the case of high-complexity semantics",
abstract = "In this paper we describe how predictive models can be positively exploited in abstract argumentation. In particular, we present two main sets of results. On one side, we show that predictive models are effective for performing algorithm selection in order to determine which approach is better to enumerate the preferred extensions of a given argumentation framework. On the other side, we show that predictive models predict significant aspects of the solution to the preferred extensions enumeration problem. By exploiting an extensive set of argumentation framework features— i.e., values that summarise a potentially important property of a framework—the proposed approach is able to provide an accurate prediction about which algorithm would be faster on a given problem instance, as well as of the structure of the solution, where the complete knowledge of such structure would require a computationally hard problem to be solved. Improving the ability of existing argumentation-based systems to support human sense-making and decision processes is just one of the possible exploitations of such knowledge obtained in an inexpensive way.",
author = "Mauro Vallati and Federico Cerutti and Massimiliano Giacomin",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1017/S0269888918000036",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "1--23",
journal = "Knowledge Engineering Review",
issn = "0269-8889",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

Predictive models and abstract argumentation : the case of high-complexity semantics. / Vallati, Mauro; Cerutti, Federico; Giacomin, Massimiliano.

In: Knowledge Engineering Review, Vol. 34, e6, 2019, p. 1-23.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Predictive models and abstract argumentation

T2 - Knowledge Engineering Review

AU - Vallati, Mauro

AU - Cerutti, Federico

AU - Giacomin, Massimiliano

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - In this paper we describe how predictive models can be positively exploited in abstract argumentation. In particular, we present two main sets of results. On one side, we show that predictive models are effective for performing algorithm selection in order to determine which approach is better to enumerate the preferred extensions of a given argumentation framework. On the other side, we show that predictive models predict significant aspects of the solution to the preferred extensions enumeration problem. By exploiting an extensive set of argumentation framework features— i.e., values that summarise a potentially important property of a framework—the proposed approach is able to provide an accurate prediction about which algorithm would be faster on a given problem instance, as well as of the structure of the solution, where the complete knowledge of such structure would require a computationally hard problem to be solved. Improving the ability of existing argumentation-based systems to support human sense-making and decision processes is just one of the possible exploitations of such knowledge obtained in an inexpensive way.

AB - In this paper we describe how predictive models can be positively exploited in abstract argumentation. In particular, we present two main sets of results. On one side, we show that predictive models are effective for performing algorithm selection in order to determine which approach is better to enumerate the preferred extensions of a given argumentation framework. On the other side, we show that predictive models predict significant aspects of the solution to the preferred extensions enumeration problem. By exploiting an extensive set of argumentation framework features— i.e., values that summarise a potentially important property of a framework—the proposed approach is able to provide an accurate prediction about which algorithm would be faster on a given problem instance, as well as of the structure of the solution, where the complete knowledge of such structure would require a computationally hard problem to be solved. Improving the ability of existing argumentation-based systems to support human sense-making and decision processes is just one of the possible exploitations of such knowledge obtained in an inexpensive way.

U2 - 10.1017/S0269888918000036

DO - 10.1017/S0269888918000036

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 1

EP - 23

JO - Knowledge Engineering Review

JF - Knowledge Engineering Review

SN - 0269-8889

M1 - e6

ER -