Dung's Argumentation Framework: Unveiling the Expressive Power with Inconsistent Databases

Yasir Mahmood,Markus Hecher,Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo

2024-12-16

Abstract:The connection between inconsistent databases and Dung's abstract argumentation framework has recently drawn growing interest. Specifically, an inconsistent database, involving certain types of integrity constraints such as functional and inclusion dependencies, can be viewed as an argumentation framework in Dung's setting. Nevertheless, no prior work has explored the exact expressive power of Dung's theory of argumentation when compared to inconsistent databases and integrity constraints. In this paper, we close this gap by arguing that an argumentation framework can also be viewed as an inconsistent database. We first establish a connection between subset-repairs for databases and extensions for AFs, considering conflict-free, naive, admissible, and preferred semantics. Further, we define a new family of attribute-based repairs based on the principle of maximal content preservation. The effectiveness of these repairs is then highlighted by connecting them to stable, semi-stable, and stage semantics. Our main contributions include translating an argumentation framework into a database together with integrity constraints. Moreover, this translation can be achieved in polynomial time, which is essential in transferring complexity results between the two formalisms.

Logic in Computer Science,Databases

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The core problem that this paper attempts to solve is to explore the relationship between the expressive power of Dung's abstract argumentation framework (AF) and inconsistent databases. Specifically, the paper aims to clarify the precise expressive power of Dung's theory when dealing with integrity constraints involving functional dependencies (FDs) and inclusion dependencies (IDs).

### Main problems of the paper

1. **Connecting AF and inconsistent databases**:
- The paper has studied how to regard the abstract argumentation framework as an inconsistent database and established the connection between them. Through this transformation, the conflict relations in AF can be mapped to the functional dependencies in the database, while the defense/support relations correspond to the inclusion dependencies.

2. **Exploring expressive power**:
- The authors attempt to determine the specific position of Dung's AF in terms of expressiveness relative to inconsistent databases. This includes proving that AF can be regarded as an inconsistent database with specific types of integrity constraints, and these constraints can capture the conflict and defense relations in AF.

3. **Defining new repair methods**:
- The paper introduces a new family of repairs based on maximum content preservation for handling inconsistent databases. These repair methods are not only theoretically significant but also show their value in practical applications.

4. **Complexity analysis**:
- The authors also explore the time complexity required to transform AF into a database and prove that this transformation can be completed in polynomial time. This provides a basis for transferring complexity results between the two forms.

### Markdown representation of formulas

To better understand these problems, the following are some key concepts involved in the paper and their mathematical representations:

- **Abstract argumentation framework (AF)**:
\[
F=(A, R)
\]
where \(A\) is the set of arguments and \(R\subseteq A\times A\) represents the direct attack relation.

- **Functional dependency (FD)**:
\[
X\rightarrow Y
\]
which means that for all tuples \(s, t\in T\), if \(s[X]=t[X]\), then \(s[Y]=t[Y]\).

- **Inclusion dependency (ID)**:
\[
X\subseteq Y
\]
which means that for each tuple \(s\in T\), there exists some tuple \(t\in T\) such that \(s[X]=t[Y]\).

- **Subset - repair (subset - repair)**:
\[
P\subseteq T
\]
\(P\) is a subset of \(T\) and satisfies all integrity constraints.

Through these formulas, the paper has explored in detail how to map the conflict and defense relations in AF to the functional dependencies and inclusion dependencies in the database, thus achieving the equivalent transformation between the two.

### Summary

In general, by building a bridge between AF and inconsistent databases, this paper reveals the expressive power of Dung's abstract argumentation framework when dealing with specific types of integrity constraints. At the same time, the authors propose new repair methods, which further strengthen the connection between these two forms and provide an important theoretical basis for future research.