In the design of global logistics problems, the solution spaces are typically extremely large. To demonstrate how these challenges can be addressed in Answer Set Programming (ASP), this work investigates a representative industrial use case of a global logistics problem in the aerospace problem domain. An exploration of specific areas of the search space is done by using heuristic-driven solving for the formulation of domain heuristics that guide the solver to potentially desirable configurations. A quantitative evaluation on the Key Performance Indicators and a qualitative evaluation on the variability of the models by means of a similarity analysis shows promising results.

We present algorithms based on satisfiability problem (SAT) solving, as well as answer set programming (ASP), for solving the problem of determining inconsistency degrees in propositional knowledge bases. We consider six different inconsistency measures whose respective decision problems lie on the first level of the polynomial hierarchy. Namely, these are the contension, forgetting-based, hitting set, max-distance, sum-distance, and hit-distance inconsistency measures. In an extensive experimental analysis, we compare the SAT-based and ASP-based approaches with each other, as well as with a set of naive baseline algorithms. Our results demonstrate that, overall, both the SAT-based and the ASP-based approaches clearly outperform the naive baseline methods in terms of runtime. The results further show that the proposed ASP-based approaches perform superior to the SAT-based ones with regard to all six inconsistency measures considered in this work. Moreover, we conduct additional experiments to explain the aforementioned results in greater detail.

Inconsistency measurement aims at obtaining a quantitative assessment of the level of inconsistency in knowledge bases. While having such a quantitative assessment is beneficial in various settings, inconsistency measurement of propositional knowledge bases is under most existing measures a significantly challenging computational task. In this work, we harness Boolean satisfiability (SAT) based solving techniques for developing practical inconsistency measurement algorithms. Our algorithms—some of which constitute, to the best of our knowledge, the first practical approaches for specific inconsistency measures—are based on using natural choices of SAT-based techniques for the individual inconsistency measures, ranging from direct maximum satisfiability (MaxSAT) encodings to MaxSAT-based column generation techniques making use of incremental computations. We show through an extensive empirical evaluation that our approaches scale well in practice and significantly outperform recently-proposed answer set programming approaches to inconsistency measurement.

We examine the impact of both training and test data selection in machine learning applications for abstract argumentation, in terms of prediction accuracy and generalizability. For that, we first review previous studies from a data-centric perspective and conduct some experiments to back up our analysis. We further present a novel algorithm to generate particularly challenging argumentation frameworks wrt. the task of deciding skeptical acceptability under preferred semantics. Moreover, we investigate graph-theoretical aspects of the existing datasets and perform some experiments which show that some simple properties (such as in-degree and out-degree of an argument) are already quite strong indicators of whether or not an argument is skeptically accepted under preferred semantics.

In abstract argumentation, the admissible semantics can be said to distinguish the preferred semantics in the sense that argumentation frameworks with the same admissible extensions also have the same preferred extensions. In this paper we present an exhaustive study of such distinguishability relationships, including those between sets of semantics. We further examine restricted classes of argumentation frameworks, such as self-attack-free and acyclic frameworks. We discuss the relevance of our results in the context of the argumentation framework elicitation problem.