Abstract Abstract argumentation frameworks have been introduced by Dung as part of an argumentation process, where arguments and conflicts are derived from a given knowledge base. It is solely this relation between arguments that is then used in order to identify acceptable sets of arguments. A final step concerns the acceptance status of particular statements by reviewing the actual contents of the acceptable arguments. Complexity analysis of abstract argumentation so far has neglected this final step and is concerned with argument names instead of their contents, i.e. their claims. As we outline in this paper, this is not only a slight deviation but can lead to different complexity results. We, therefore, give a comprehensive complexity analysis of abstract argumentation under a claim-centric view and analyse the four main decision problems under seven popular semantics. In addition, we also address the complexity of common sub-classes and introduce novel parameterisations – which exploit the nature of claims explicitly – along with fixed-parameter tractability results.

中文翻译：

---

以索赔为中心的观点下抽象论证的复杂性

摘要 Dung 引入了抽象论证框架作为论证过程的一部分，其中论证和冲突源自给定的知识库。仅使用参数之间的这种关系来识别可接受的参数集。最后一步涉及通过审查可接受参数的实际内容来确定特定陈述的接受状态。到目前为止，抽象论证的复杂性分析忽略了这最后一步，而是关注论证名称而不是它们的内容，即它们的主张。正如我们在本文中概述的那样，这不仅是轻微的偏差，而且会导致不同的复杂性结果。因此，我们 在以索赔为中心的观点下对抽象论证进行全面的复杂性分析，并分析七种流行语义下的四个主要决策问题。此外，我们还解决了常见子类的复杂性，并引入了新的参数化——明确利用了索赔的性质——以及固定参数的易处理性结果。