Extension Enforcement under Grounded Semantics in Abstract Argumentation.

The study of dynamics in abstract argumentation gives rise to optimization problems that are NP-hard also under the grounded semantics, in contrast to argument acceptance problems over argumentation frameworks (AF). Developing efficient systems for AF reasoning under grounded semantics has received less attention compared to other central AF semantics under which acceptance is NP-hard. In particular, grounded semantics is not currently supported by recent systems for extension enforcement, despite (or due to) its non-triviality. In this work, we propose and empirically evaluate three first approaches to enforcement under grounded semantics. While each of the approaches is based on employing constraint optimization solvers, we show empirically that there are significant differences in the scalability of the approaches.