Deciding Acceptance in Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks

Expressing incomplete knowledge in abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) through incomplete AFs has recently received noticeable attention. However, algorithmic aspects of deciding acceptance in incomplete AFs are still underdeveloped. We address this current shortcoming by developing algorithms for NP-hard and coNP-hard variants of acceptance problems over incomplete AFs via harnessing Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solvers. Focusing on nonempty conflict-free or admissible sets and on stable extensions, we also provide new complexity results for a refined variant of skeptical acceptance in incomplete AFs, ranging from polynomial-time computability to hardness for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. Furthermore, central to the proposed SAT-based counterexample-guided abstraction refinement approach for the second-level problem variants, we establish conditions for redundant atomic changes to incomplete AFs from the perspective of preserving extensions. We show empirically that the resulting SAT-based approach for incomplete AFs scales at least as well as existing SAT-based approaches to deciding acceptance in AFs.