On the preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: bijections with naive extensions

This paper deals with the problem of finding the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework by means of a bijection with the naive extensions of another framework. First we consider the case where an argumentation framework is naive-realizable: its naive and preferred extensions are equal. Recognizing naive-realizable argumentation frameworks is hard, but we show that it is tractable for frameworks with bounded in-degree. Next, we give a bijection between the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework being admissible-closed (the intersection of two admissible sets is admissible) and the naive extensions of another framework on the same set of arguments. On the other hand, we prove that identifying admissible-closed argumentation frameworks is coNP-complete. At last, we introduce the notion of irreducible self-defending sets as those that are not the union of others. It turns out there exists a bijection between the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework and the naive extensions of a framework on its irreducible self-defending sets. Consequently, the preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks with some lattice properties can be listed with polynomial delay and polynomial space.