Splitting Assumption-Based Argumentation Frameworks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.27964v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:56:26 GMT
• Title: Splitting Assumption-Based Argumentation Frameworks
• Abstract summary: Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) is a well-established formalism for modelling and reasoning over debates.<n>This paper investigates the concept of splitting on the knowledge base rather than on its graph-based instantiation.
• Score: 9.546922368727428
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) is a well-established formalism for modelling and reasoning over debates, with a wide range of applications. However, the high computational complexity of core reasoning tasks in ABA poses a significant challenge for its applicability. This issue is further aggravated when ABA frameworks (ABAFs) are instantiated into graph-based argumentation formalisms, such as Dung's Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) and Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks (SETAFs). In knowledge representation and reasoning, a key strategy to address computational intractability is to optimise reasoning over a given knowledge base through divide-and-conquer algorithms. A paradigmatic example of this approach is splitting, where extensions of a given framework are computed incrementally, by restricting the search space to sub-frameworks only, and then combining the obtained results. This approach has been successfully applied to AFs, for which also a parametrised version has been introduced under stable semantics. However, the exponential growth produced by the instantiation might undermine the usefulness of splitting on the argument graphs induced by ABAFs. To address this issue, our work investigates the concept of splitting on the knowledge base rather than on its graph-based instantiation. Furthermore, we generalise splitting to its parametrised version for ABAFs.

Related papers

• Causal-Audit: Explicit and Auditable Graph-based Reasoning via Target-Aware Causal Chain Construction [14.96995835279229]
  Causal and intervention-based question answering is fundamental to advancing large language models.<n>We propose an explicit and auditable causal reasoning framework for context-free intervention-based question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-22T23:24:18Z)
• Leveraging Large Language Models for Causal Discovery: a Constraint-based, Argumentation-driven Approach [9.175642602891939]
  Causal Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) is a framework that uses symbolic reasoning to ensure correspondence between input constraints and output graphs.<n>We explore the use of large language models (LLMs) as imperfect experts for Causal ABA, eliciting semantic structural priors from variable names and descriptions.<n> Experiments on standard benchmarks and semantically grounded synthetic graphs demonstrate state-of-the-art performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T14:15:21Z)
• ReGuLaR: Variational Latent Reasoning Guided by Rendered Chain-of-Thought [49.203970812338916]
  Explicit reasoning chains introduce substantial computational redundancy.<n>Recent latent reasoning methods attempt to mitigate this by compressing reasoning processes into latent space.<n>We propose Rendered CoT-Guided variational Latent Reasoning (ReGuLaR)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T17:08:06Z)
• Step-Aware Policy Optimization for Reasoning in Diffusion Large Language Models [57.42778606399764]
  Diffusion language models (dLLMs) offer a promising, non-autoregressive paradigm for text generation.<n>Current reinforcement learning approaches often rely on sparse, outcome-based rewards.<n>We argue that this stems from a fundamental mismatch with the natural structure of reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T00:34:15Z)
• Implicit Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey [67.53966514728383]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong generalization across a wide range of tasks.<n>Recent studies have shifted attention from explicit chain-of-thought prompting toward implicit reasoning.<n>This survey introduces a taxonomy centered on execution paradigms, shifting the focus from representational forms to computational strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T14:16:02Z)
• On Gradual Semantics for Assumption-Based Argumentation [15.021229450879316]
  In computational argumentation, gradual semantics are fine-grained alternatives to extension-based and labelling-based semantics.<n>We show that our gradual ABA semantics satisfy suitable adaptations of desirable properties, such as balance and monotonicity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T09:02:45Z)
• PixelThink: Towards Efficient Chain-of-Pixel Reasoning [70.32510083790069]
  PixelThink is a simple yet effective scheme that integrates externally estimated task difficulty and internally measured model uncertainty.<n>It learns to compress reasoning length in accordance with scene complexity and predictive confidence.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach improves both reasoning efficiency and overall segmentation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:55:49Z)
• Efficient Inference for Large Reasoning Models: A Survey [74.17203483365171]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) significantly improve the reasoning ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) by learning to reason.<n>However, their deliberative reasoning process leads to inefficiencies in token usage, memory consumption, and inference time.<n>This survey provides a review of efficient inference methods designed specifically for LRMs, focusing on mitigating token inefficiency while preserving the reasoning quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-29T13:27:46Z)
• Instantiations and Computational Aspects of Non-Flat Assumption-based Argumentation [18.32141673219938]
  We study an instantiation-based approach for reasoning in possibly non-flat ABA. We propose two algorithmic approaches for reasoning in possibly non-flat ABA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-17T14:36:47Z)
• Harnessing Incremental Answer Set Solving for Reasoning in Assumption-Based Argumentation [1.5469452301122177]
  Assumption-based argumentation (ABA) is a central structured argumentation formalism. Recent advances in answer set programming (ASP) enable efficiently solving NP-hard reasoning tasks of ABA in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-09T17:34:05Z)
• Variational Causal Networks: Approximate Bayesian Inference over Causal Structures [132.74509389517203]
  We introduce a parametric variational family modelled by an autoregressive distribution over the space of discrete DAGs. In experiments, we demonstrate that the proposed variational posterior is able to provide a good approximation of the true posterior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T17:52:49Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.