The International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA) is a successful event dedicated to advancing the state of the art of solvers in Abstract Argumentation. We describe two proposals that will further improve the third and next edition of the competition, i.e. ICCMA 2019. The first novelty concerns the packaging of each solver-application participating in the com- petition in a virtual “light” container (using Docker): this allows for easy deployment and to (re)running all of the submissions on different architectures (Linux, Windows, macOS, and also in the cloud). The second proposal consists of a new track focused on solvers processing dynamic frameworks, i.e., solvers described in terms of changes w.r.t. previous ones: a solver can reuse the solution obtained previously to be faster on the same framework modulo a new argument/attack.

1. 1University of Perugia, Italy
Containerisation and Dynamic
Frameworks in ICCMA’19
Stefano BISTARELLI1, Lars KOTTHOFF2, Francesco SANTINI1,
and Carlo TATICCHI3
2University of Wyoming, U.S.
3Gran Sasso Science Institute, Italy

2. Overview
• Introduction to AFs
• ICCMA Competition
• Docker
• Special track: Dynamics in AFs

3. A Concurrent Argumentation Language for Negotiation and Debating
Carlo Taticchi — September 6, 2018 3
a b
c d e
f
Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

4. A Concurrent Argumentation Language for Negotiation and Debating
Carlo Taticchi — September 6, 2018 4
a b
c d e
f
Admissible
Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

5. ICCMA

6. Problems to Solve
• (SE) Given an AFs, determine some extension
w.r.t. Preferred, Stable, Semi-stable, Stage, Grounded, and Ideal Semantics

7. Problems to Solve
• (SE) Given an AFs, determine some extension
• (EE) Given an AFs, determine all extensions
w.r.t. Preferred, Stable, Semi-stable, Stage, Grounded, and Ideal Semantics

8. Problems to Solve
• (SE) Given an AFs, determine some extension
• (EE) Given an AFs, determine all extensions
• (DC) Given an AFs and some argument, decide whether the given
argument is credulously inferred
w.r.t. Preferred, Stable, Semi-stable, Stage, Grounded, and Ideal Semantics

9. Problems to Solve
• (SE) Given an AFs, determine some extension
• (EE) Given an AFs, determine all extensions
• (DC) Given an AFs and some argument, decide whether the given
argument is credulously inferred
• (DS) Given an AFs and some argument, decide whether the given
argument is skeptically inferred
w.r.t. Preferred, Stable, Semi-stable, Stage, Grounded, and Ideal Semantics

10. Docker
• Allows to develop and run applications with containers

11. Docker
• Allows to develop and run applications with containers
• A container is a runtime instance of an image

12. Docker
• Allows to develop and run applications with containers
• A container is a runtime instance of an image
• Containers can be defined with Dockerfile

13. Docker
• Allows to develop and run applications with containers
• A container is a runtime instance of an image
• Containers can be defined with Dockerfile

14. Docker

15. • The solver has to be packaged in a Docker container. Example:
FROM alpine
WORKDIR /app
COPY . .
ENTRYPOINT [ "./generic-interface-2019.sh" ]
Packing the solver

16. • The solver has to be packaged in a Docker container. Example:
FROM alpine
WORKDIR /app
COPY . .
ENTRYPOINT [ "./generic-interface-2019.sh" ]
• Wrapper example:
#!/bin/sh
limit=$1
shift
time ./runsolver -w /dev/null -C $limit ./generic-interface-2019.sh $@
Packing the solver

17. • For each graph, each solver has 10 minutes to solve the given
computational problem:
Rules of the competition

18. • For each graph, each solver has 10 minutes to solve the given
computational problem:
‣ 1 point, if it delivers the correct AND COMPLETE result
Rules of the competition

19. • For each graph, each solver has 10 minutes to solve the given
computational problem:
‣ 1 point, if it delivers the correct AND COMPLETE result
‣ A fraction of point in case of correct AND INCOMPLETE result
Rules of the competition

20. • For each graph, each solver has 10 minutes to solve the given
computational problem:
‣ 1 point, if it delivers the correct AND COMPLETE result
‣ A fraction of point in case of correct AND INCOMPLETE result
‣ −5 points, if it delivers an incorrect result;
Rules of the competition

21. • For each graph, each solver has 10 minutes to solve the given
computational problem:
‣ 1 point, if it delivers the correct AND COMPLETE result
‣ A fraction of point in case of correct AND INCOMPLETE result
‣ −5 points, if it delivers an incorrect result;
‣ 0 points otherwise (NO RESULTS IN THE GIVEN TIME, or exit for not enough memory)
Rules of the competition

22. • For each graph, each solver has 10 minutes to solve the given
computational problem:
‣ 1 point, if it delivers the correct AND COMPLETE result
‣ A fraction of point in case of correct AND INCOMPLETE result
‣ −5 points, if it delivers an incorrect result;
‣ 0 points otherwise (NO RESULTS IN THE GIVEN TIME, or exit for not enough memory)
• The score of each solver is calculated as for ICCMA’17
Rules of the competition

23. • For each graph, each solver has 10 minutes to solve the given
computational problem:
‣ 1 point, if it delivers the correct AND COMPLETE result
‣ A fraction of point in case of correct AND INCOMPLETE result
‣ −5 points, if it delivers an incorrect result;
‣ 0 points otherwise (NO RESULTS IN THE GIVEN TIME, or exit for not enough memory)
• The score of each solver is calculated as for ICCMA’17
• For each track, a ranking of the solvers is determined by their number of
correctly and timely classified instances
Rules of the competition

24. ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●
● ● ● ● ●
●
● ●
●
● ●
1
10
100
admbuster_1000.apx
admbuster_2000.apx
admbuster_4000.apx
admbuster_6000.apx
afinput_exp_acyclic_depvary_step3_batch_yyy01.apx
afinput_exp_acyclic_indvary1_step5_batch_yyy04.apx
afinput_exp_acyclic_indvary1_step5_batch_yyy09.apx
afinput_exp_acyclic_indvary3_step1_batch_yyy10.apx
afinput_exp_cycles_indvary3_step8_batch_yyy07.apx
BA_120_30_3.apx
BA_180_10_2.apx
BA_200_10_5.apx
BA_40_80_5.apx
BA_60_70_3.apx
brookings−or−us.gml.50.apx
caravan−or−us.gml.80.apx
ER_100_100_1.apx
ER_100_50_6.apx
ER_100_90_4.apx
ER_200_70_5.apx
ER_300_100_4.apx
ferry2.pfile−L2−C1−05.pddl.3.cnf.apx
ferry2.pfile−L2−C1−08.pddl.1.cnf.apx
ferry2.pfile−L2−C2−08.pddl.1.cnf.apx
ferry2.pfile−L3−C1−04.pddl.2.cnf.apx
ferry2.pfile−L3−C2−02.pddl.2.cnf.apx
grd_1790_4_8.apx
grd_2065_1_8.apx
grd_418_2_9.apx
grd_489_5_8.apx
hut−airport−shuttle_20120105_0729.gml.50.apx
massachusetts_vineyardfastferry_2015−11−13.gml.50.apx
rockland−county−department−of−public−transportation_20121220_2018.gml.20.apx
scc_1109_50_10_5.apx
scc_1439_40_15_17.apx
scc_341_30_5_9.apx
scc_845_40_5_19.apx
scc_989_70_15_3.apx
sembuster_150.apx
sembuster_60.apx
stb_190_70.apx
stb_196_281.apx
stb_291_2.apx
stb_389_42.apx
stb_437_137.apx
WS_100_12_10_70.apx
WS_100_12_50_30.apx
WS_100_18_30_10.apx
WS_100_6_70_30.apx
WS_500_16_30_70.apx
instance
time
correct
● FALSE
TRUE
solver
●
●
conarg
pyglaf
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
conarg pyglaf
solver
time
−50
−25
0
25
50
conarg pyglaf
solver
points
●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
●
−4
−2
0
admbuster_1000.apx
admbuster_2000.apx
admbuster_4000.apx
admbuster_6000.apx
afinput_exp_acyclic_depvary_step3_batch_yyy01.apx
afinput_exp_acyclic_indvary1_step5_batch_yyy04.apx
afinput_exp_acyclic_indvary1_step5_batch_yyy09.apx
afinput_exp_acyclic_indvary3_step1_batch_yyy10.apx
afinput_exp_cycles_indvary3_step8_batch_yyy07.apx
BA_120_30_3.apx
BA_180_10_2.apx
BA_200_10_5.apx
BA_40_80_5.apx
BA_60_70_3.apx
brookings−or−us.gml.50.apx
caravan−or−us.gml.80.apx
ER_100_100_1.apx
ER_100_50_6.apx
ER_100_90_4.apx
ER_200_70_5.apx
ER_300_100_4.apx
ferry2.pfile−L2−C1−05.pddl.3.cnf.apx
ferry2.pfile−L2−C1−08.pddl.1.cnf.apx
ferry2.pfile−L2−C2−08.pddl.1.cnf.apx
ferry2.pfile−L3−C1−04.pddl.2.cnf.apx
ferry2.pfile−L3−C2−02.pddl.2.cnf.apx
grd_1790_4_8.apx
grd_2065_1_8.apx
grd_418_2_9.apx
grd_489_5_8.apx
hut−airport−shuttle_20120105_0729.gml.50.apx
massachusetts_vineyardfastferry_2015−11−13.gml.50.apx
rockland−county−department−of−public−transportation_20121220_2018.gml.20.apx
scc_1109_50_10_5.apx
scc_1439_40_15_17.apx
scc_341_30_5_9.apx
scc_845_40_5_19.apx
scc_989_70_15_3.apx
sembuster_150.apx
sembuster_60.apx
stb_190_70.apx
stb_196_281.apx
stb_291_2.apx
stb_389_42.apx
stb_437_137.apx
WS_100_12_10_70.apx
WS_100_12_50_30.apx
WS_100_18_30_10.apx
WS_100_6_70_30.apx
WS_500_16_30_70.apx
instance
points
solver
●
●
conarg
pyglaf

25. • AFs can undergo changes in terms of arguments and attacks
Special Track: Dynamics
a
c
e
b
d
a
c
e
b
d

26. • AFs can undergo changes in terms of arguments and attacks
• 2 possible options for input
Special Track: Dynamics
a
c
e
b
d
a
c
e
b
d

27. • An AF will be passed to solvers together with a list of changes
• Example: +att(a,b). -att(d,e).
Special Track: Dynamics
a
c
e
b
d
a
c
e
b
d
Option 1

28. • An initial AF will be passed to solvers together with a list modified AFs
Special Track: Dynamics
a
c
e
b
d
a
c
e
b
d
Option 2
AF1 AF2
a
c
e
b
d
AF

29. Call for Benchmarks
• Submissions:
• Instance set from real world, and/or
• Instance generator

30. Call for Benchmarks
• Submissions:
• Instance set from real world, and/or
• Instance generator
• Formats:
Submitted benchmarks will be made available to the community after the event
Trivial Graph Format Aspartix Format

31. 1University of Perugia, Italy
Containerisation and Dynamic
Frameworks in ICCMA’19
Stefano BISTARELLI1, Lars KOTTHOFF2, Francesco SANTINI1,
and Carlo TATICCHI3
2University of Wyoming, U.S.
3Gran Sasso Science Institute, Italy
Thanks for your attention!