A Comparative Test on the Enumeration of Extensions in Abstract Argumentation*

Issue title: Special Issue on the Italian Conference on Computational Logic: CILC 2013

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Bistarelli, Stefano^a | Rossi, Fabio^a | Santini, Francesco^{a; †}

Affiliations: [a] Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Via Vanvitelli 1, 06123 Perugia, Italy. [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Note: [*] Supported by GNCS-INDAM “Efficient Methods for Argumentation-based Decision Support”. First author is supported by PRIN “Metodi logici per il trattamento dell’informazione” and IIT-CNR (Pisa, Italy).

Note: [*] Address for correspondence: Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Via Vanvitelli 1, 06123 Perugia, Italy

Abstract: We compare four different implementations of reasoning-tools dedicated to Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. These systems are ArgTools, ASPARTIX, ConArg2, and Dung-O-Matic. They have been tested over three different models of randomly-generated graph models, corresponding to the Erdős-Rényi model, the Kleinberg small-world model, and the scale-free Barabasi-Albert model. This first comparison is useful to study the behaviour of these tools over networks with different topologies (also small-world): we scale the number of arguments to check the limits of today’s systems. Such results can be used to guide further improvements of ConArg2 (our tool), but also different tools.

DOI: 10.3233/FI-2015-1254

Journal: Fundamenta Informaticae, vol. 140, no. 3-4, pp. 263-278, 2015