We introduce the notion of contrastive ABox explanations to answer questions of the type “Why is a an instance of C, but b is not?”. While there are various approaches for explaining positive entailments (why is C(a) entailed by the knowledge base) as well as missing entailments (why is C(b) not entailed) in isolation, contrastive explanations consider both at the same time, which allows them to focus on the relevant commonalities and differences between a and b. We develop an appropriate notion of contrastive explanations for the special case of ABox reasoning with description logic ontologies, and analyze the computational complexity for different variants under different optimality criteria, considering lightweight as well as more expressive description logics. We implemented a first method for computing one variant of contrastive explanations, and evaluated it on generated problems for realistic knowledge bases.

Structural measures of graphs, such as treewidth, are central tools in computational complexity resulting in efficient algorithms when exploiting the parameter. It is even known that modern SAT solvers work efficiently on instances of small treewidth. Since these solvers are widely applied, research interests in compact encodings into (Q)SAT for solving and to understand encoding limitations. Even more general is the graph parameter clique-width, which unlike treewidth can be small for dense graphs. Although algorithms are available for clique-width, little is known about encodings. We initiate the quest to understand encoding capabilities with clique-width by considering abstract argumentation, which is a robust framework for reasoning with conflicting arguments. It is based on directed graphs and asks for computationally challenging properties, making it a natural candidate to study computational properties. We design novel reductions from argumentation problems to (Q)SAT. Our reductions linearly preserve the clique-width, resulting in directed decomposition-guided (DDG) reductions. We establish novel results for all argumentation semantics, including counting. Notably, the overhead caused by our DDG reductions cannot be significantly improved under reasonable assumptions.

Given a knowledge base (KB) with a non-entailed fact, the ABox abduction problem asks for possible extensions of the KB that would entail this fact. This problem has many applications, ranging from diagnosis to explainability and repair. ABox abduction has been well-investigated for consistent KBs and classical semantics, but little is known for the case of inconsistent KBs, which can be caused by erroneous data. In this paper we define suitable notions of abduction in this setting and propose criteria that guide abduction towards useful hypotheses. To regain meaningful reasoning in the presence of inconsistencies, we use well-established repair semantics. We provide a comprehensive landscape of the complexity of ABox abduction under repair semantics, treating different variants of the abduction problem for the light-weight description logics DL-Lite and EL_bot.

The connection between inconsistent databases and Dung’s abstract argumentation framework has recently drawn growing interest. Specifically, an inconsistent database, involving certain types of integrity constraints such as functional and inclusion dependencies, can be viewed as an argumentation framework in Dung’s setting. Nevertheless, no prior work has explored the exact expressive power of Dung’s theory of argumentation when compared to inconsistent databases and integrity constraints. In this paper, we close this gap by arguing that an argumentation framework can also be viewed as an inconsistent database. We first establish a connection between subset-repairs for databases and extensions for AFs considering conflict-free, naive, admissible, and preferred semantics. Further, we define a new family of attribute-based repairs based on the principle of maximal content preservation. The effectiveness of these repairs is then highlighted by connecting them to stable, semi-stable, and stage semantics. Our main contributions include translating an argumentation framework into a database together with integrity constraints. Moreover, this translation can be achieved in polynomial time, which is essential in transferring complexity results between the two formalisms.

Argumentation is a central subarea of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for modeling and reasoning about arguments. The semantics of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) is given by sets of arguments (extensions) and conditions on the relationship between arguments, such as stable or admissible. Today's solvers implement tasks such as finding extensions, deciding credulously or skeptically acceptance, counting, or enumerating extensions. While these tasks are well charted, the area between decision and counting/enumeration and fine-grained reasoning requires expensive reasoning so far. We introduce a novel concept (facets) for reasoning between decision and enumeration. Facets are arguments that belong to some extensions (credulous) but not to all extensions (skeptical). They are most natural when a user aims to navigate, filter, or comprehend specific arguments, according to their needs. We study the complexity and show that tasks involving facets are much easier than counting extensions. Finally, we provide an implementation, and conduct experiments to demonstrate feasibility.

Concept learning exploits background knowledge in the form of description logic axioms to learn explainable classification models from knowledge bases. Despite recent breakthroughs in neuro-symbolic concept learning, most approaches still cannot be deployed on real-world knowledge bases. This is due to their use of description logic reasoners, which are not robust against inconsistencies nor erroneous data. We address this challenge by presenting a novel neural reasoner dubbed Ebr. Our reasoner relies on embeddings to approximate the results of a symbolic reasoner. We show that Ebr solely requires retrieving instances for atomic concepts and existential restrictions to retrieve or approximate the set of instances of any concept in the description logic \(\mathcal {SHOIQ}\). In our experiments, we compare Ebr with state-of-the-art reasoners. Our results suggest that Ebr is robust against missing and erroneous data in contrast to existing reasoners.

Abstract We study the expressivity and the complexity of various logics in probabilistic team semantics with the Boolean negation. In particular, we study the extension of probabilistic independence logic with the Boolean negation, and a recently introduced logic first-order theory of random variables with probabilistic independence. We give several results that compare the expressivity of these logics with the most studied logics in probabilistic team semantics setting, as well as relating their expressivity to a numerical variant of second-order logic. In addition, we introduce novel entropy atoms and show that the extension of first-order logic by entropy atoms subsumes probabilistic independence logic. Finally, we obtain some results on the complexity of model checking, validity and satisfiability of our logics.

Abstract argumentation is a popular toolkit for modeling, evaluating, and comparing arguments. Relationships between arguments are specified in argumentation frameworks (AFs), and conditions are placed on sets (extensions) of arguments that allow AFs to be evaluated. For more expressiveness, AFs are augmented with acceptance conditions on directly interacting arguments or a constraint on the admissible sets of arguments, resulting in dialectic frameworks or constrained argumentation frameworks. In this paper, we consider flexible conditions for rejecting an argument from an extension, which we call rejection conditions (RCs). On the technical level, we associate each argument with a specific logic program. We analyze the resulting complexity, including the structural parameter treewidth. Rejection AFs are highly expressive, giving rise to natural problems on higher levels of the polynomial hierarchy.

Abstract In this article, we study the complexity of weighted team definability for logics with team semantics. This problem is a natural analog of one of the most studied problems in parameterized complexity, the notion of weighted Fagin-definability, which is formulated in terms of satisfaction of first-order formulas with free relation variables. We focus on the parameterized complexity of weighted team definability for a fixed formula $\varphi$ of central team-based logics. Given a first-order structure $\mathcal{A}$ and the parameter value $k\in \mathbb N$ as input, the question is to determine whether $\mathcal{A},T\models \varphi$ for some team T of size k. We show several results on the complexity of this problem for dependence, independence, and inclusion logic formulas. Moreover, we also relate the complexity of weighted team definability to the complexity classes in the well-known W-hierarchy as well as paraNP.

Argumentation is a well-established formalism for nonmonotonic reasoning and a vibrant area of research in AI. Claim-augmented argumentation frameworks (CAFs) have been introduced to deploy a conclusion-oriented perspective. CAFs expand argumentation frameworks by an additional step which involves retaining claims for an accepted set of arguments. We introduce a novel concept of a justification status for claims, a quantitative measure of extensions supporting a particular claim. The well-studied problems of credulous and skeptical reasoning can then be seen as simply the two endpoints of the spectrum when considered as a justification level of a claim. Furthermore, we explore the parameterized complexity of various reasoning problems for CAFs, including the quantitative reasoning for claim assertions. We begin by presenting a suitable graph representation that includes arguments and their associated claims. Our analysis includes the parameter treewidth, and we present decomposition-guided reductions between reasoning problems in CAF and the validity problem for QBF.

Argumentation is a well-established formalism dealing with conflicting information by generating and comparing arguments. It has been playing a major role in AI for decades. In logic-based argumentation, we explore the internal structure of an argument. Informally, a set of formulas is the support for a given claim if it is consistent, subset-minimal, and implies the claim. In such a case, the pair of the support and the claim together is called an argument. In this article, we study the propositional variants of the following three computational tasks studied in argumentation: ARG (exists a support for a given claim with respect to a given set of formulas), ARG-Check (is a given set a support for a given claim), and ARG-Rel (similarly as ARG plus requiring an additionally given formula to be contained in the support). ARG-Check is complete for the complexity class DP, and the other two problems are known to be complete for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy (Creignou et al. 2014 and Parson et al., 2003) and, accordingly, are highly intractable. Analyzing the reason for this intractability, we perform a two-dimensional classification: First, we consider all possible propositional fragments of the problem within Schaefer’s framework (STOC 1978) and then study different parameterizations for each of the fragments. We identify a list of reasonable structural parameters (size of the claim, support, knowledge base) that are connected to the aforementioned decision problems. Eventually, we thoroughly draw a fine border of parameterized intractability for each of the problems showing where the problems are fixed-parameter tractable and when this exactly stops. Surprisingly, several cases are of very high intractability (para-NP and beyond).

Abstract In this paper, we investigate the parameterized complexity of model checking for Dependence and Independence logic, which are well studied logics in the area of Team Semantics. We start with a list of nine immediate parameterizations for this problem, namely the number of disjunctions (i.e. splits)/(free) variables/universal quantifiers, formula-size, the tree-width of the Gaifman graph of the input structure, the size of the universe/team and the arity of dependence atoms. We present a comprehensive picture of the parameterized complexity of model checking and obtain a division of the problem into tractable and various intractable degrees. Furthermore, we also consider the complexity of the most important variants (data and expression complexity) of the model checking problem by fixing parts of the input.

Argumentation is a widely applied framework for modeling and evaluating arguments and its reasoning with various applications. Popular frameworks are abstract argumentation (Dung’s framework) or logic-based argumentation (Besnard-Hunter’s framework). Their computational complexity has been studied quite in-depth. Incorporating treewidth into the complexity analysis is particularly interesting, as solvers oftentimes employ SAT-based solvers, which can solve instances of low treewidth fast. In this paper, we address whether one can design reductions from argumentation problems to SAT-problems while linearly preserving the treewidth, which results in decomposition-guided (DG) reductions. It turns out that the linear treewidth overhead caused by our DG reductions, cannot be significantly improved under reasonable assumptions. Finally, we consider logic-based argumentation and establish new upper bounds using DG reductions and lower bounds.

Abstract Abductive reasoning is a non-monotonic formalism stemming from the work of Peirce. It describes the process of deriving the most plausible explanations of known facts. Considering the positive version, asking for sets of variables as explanations, we study, besides the problem of wether there exists a set of explanations, two explanation size limited variants of this reasoning problem (less than or equal to, and equal to a given size bound). In this paper, we present a thorough two-dimensional classification of these problems: the first dimension is regarding the parameterized complexity under a wealth of different parameterizations, and the second dimension spans through all possible Boolean fragments of these problems in Schaefer’s constraint satisfaction framework with co-clones (T. J. Schaefer. The complexity of satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, May 1–3, 1978, San Diego, California, USA, R.J. Lipton, W.A. Burkhard, W.J. Savitch, E.P. Friedman, A.V. Aho eds, pp. 216–226. ACM, 1978). Thereby, we almost complete the parameterized complexity classification program initiated by Fellows et al. (The parameterized complexity of abduction. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Articial Intelligence, July 22–26, 2012, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, J. Homann, B. Selman eds. AAAI Press, 2012), partially building on the results by Nordh and Zanuttini (What makes propositional abduction tractable. Artificial Intelligence, 172, 1245–1284, 2008). In this process, we outline a fine-grained analysis of the inherent parameterized intractability of these problems and pinpoint their FPT parts. As the standard algebraic approach is not applicable to our problems, we develop an alternative method that makes the algebraic tools partially available again.