Necessary and sufficient conditions of the enforcement problem for various argumentation semantics

Abstract

Abstract In the research on dynamics of argumentation frameworks (AFs), the enforcement problem deals with changing an AF for the purpose of ensuring that a certain set of desired arguments becomes (part of) an extension. In this paper we focus on expansions of an AF where solely the addition of new arguments and attacks is allowed and the original framework remains unchanged. Existing results about the enforcement problem are all sufficient conditions, and we argue that necessary and sufficient conditions are essential concerning the solvability of the enforcement problem. A suite of jointly necessary and sufficient conditions are identified for the enforcement problem under normal expansion. These conditions are presented from multiple perspectives including the sub-strict versus non-strict problem, constructive versus eliminative conditions and arbitrary AFs versus even(odd)-length cycle free AFs, determined by the nature of various argumentation semantics. Such necessary and sufficient conditions are of the essence to the enforcement problem by defining requirements that are both minimum and absolute, which can be used to determine when the enforcement problem is (un)solvable. We further infer solely sufficient and solely necessary conditions based on the partial order relation (w.r.t. set-inclusion) among various types of AF extensions.