Choices and their Provenance: Explaining Stable Solutions of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

Abstract

The rule $\mathrm{Defeated}(x) \leftarrow \mathrm{Attacks}(y,x),\, \neg \, \mathrm{Defeated}(y)$, evaluated under the well-founded semantics (WFS), yields a unique 3-valued (skeptical) solution of an abstract argumentation framework (AF). An argument $x$ is defeated ($\mathrm{OUT}$) if there exists an undefeated argument $y$ that attacks it. For 2-valued (stable) solutions, this is the case iff $y$ is accepted ($\mathrm{IN}$), i.e., if all of $y$'s attackers are defeated. Under WFS, arguments that are neither accepted nor defeated are undecided ($\mathrm{UNDEC}$). As shown in prior work, well-founded solutions (a.k.a. grounded labelings) "explain themselves": The provenance of arguments is given by subgraphs (definable via regular path queries) rooted at the node of interest. This provenance is closely related to winning strategies of a two-player argumentation game. We present a novel approach for extending this provenance to stable AF solutions. Unlike grounded solutions, which can be constructed via a bottom-up alternating fixpoint procedure, stable models often involve non-deterministic choice as part of the search for models. Thus, the provenance of stable solutions is of a different nature, and reflects a more expressive generate & test paradigm. Our approach identifies minimal sets of critical attacks, pinpointing choices and assumptions made by a stable model. These critical attack edges provide additional insights into the provenance of an argument's status, combining well-founded derivation steps with choice steps. Our approach can be understood as a form of diagnosis that finds minimal "repairs" to an AF graph such that the well-founded solution of the repaired graph coincides with the desired stable model of the original AF graph.