Dependence logic is a formalism that augments the syntax of first-order logic with dependence atoms asserting that the value of a variable is determined by the values of some other variables, i.e., dependence atoms express functional dependencies in relational databases. On finite structures, dependence logic captures NP, hence there are sentences of dependence logic whose model-checking problem is NP-complete. In fact, it is known that there are disjunctions of three dependence atoms whose model-checking problem is NP-complete. Motivated from considerations in database theory, we study the model-checking problem for disjunctions of two unary dependence atoms and establish a trichotomy theorem, namely, for every such formula, one of the following is true for the model-checking problem: (i) it is NL-complete; (ii) it is L-complete; (iii) it is first-order definable (hence, in AC⁰). Furthermore, we classify the complexity of the model-checking problem for disjunctions of two arbitrary dependence atoms, and also characterize when such a disjunction is coherent, i.e., when it satisfies a certain small-model property. Along the way, we identify a new class of 2CNF-formulas whose satisfiability problem is L-complete.

We study the expressive power and computational properties of first-order logic and its extensions under the semiring semantics originating from the seminal work of Green, Karvounarakis, and Tannen. While semiring semantics is currently extensively used, e.g., in the study of provenance in database theory and description logic, a comprehensive computational analysis of these logics acting over general semirings is still lacking. We analyse expressivity, and complexity of model-checking of first-order formulas in this framework, providing characterizations in terms of generalized Blum–Shub–Smale machines over semirings. We also show a variant of Fagin's theorem, i.e., a logical characterization of nondeterministic polynomial time over semirings using a version of existential second-order logic. We further generalize Cook's theorem for the semiring framework and show that propositional satisfiability in the semiring semantics is complete for this notion of NP, and that the true existential first-order theory of the semiring is complete for its Boolean fragment.

This paper establishes and proves representation theorems for cumulative propositional dependence logic and for cumulative propositional logic with team semantics. Cumulative logics are famously given by System~C. For propositional dependence logic, we show that System C entailments are exactly captured by cumulative models from Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor. On the other hand, we show that entailment in cumulative propositional logics with team semantics is exactly captured by cumulative and asymmetric models. For the latter, we also obtain equivalence with cumulative logics based on propositional logic with classical semantics. The proofs will be useful for proving representation theorems for other cumulative logics without negation and material implication.

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.

We introduce a general abstract framework for database repairs, where the repair notions are defined using formal logic. We distinguish between integrity constraints and so-called query constraints. The former are used to model consistency and desirable properties of the data (such as functional dependencies and independencies), while the latter relate two database instances according to their answers to the query constraints. The framework allows for a distinction between hard and soft queries, allowing the answers to a core set of queries to be preserved, as well as defining a distance between instances based on query answers. We illustrate how different repair notions from the literature can be modelled in our framework. The framework generalises both set-based and cardinality based repairs to semiring annotated databases. Finally, we initiate a complexity-theoretic analysis of consistent query answering and checking existence of a repair in our setting.

This paper considers the complexity and properties of KLM-style preferential reasoning in the setting of propositional logic with team semantics and dependence atoms, also known as propositional dependence logic. Preferential team-based reasoning is shown to be cumulative, yet violates System P. We give intuitive conditions that fully characterise those cases where preferential propositional dependence logic satisfies System P. We show that these characterisations do, surprisingly, not carry over to preferential team-based propositional logic. Furthermore, we show how classical entailment and dependence logic entailment can be expressed in terms of non-trivial preferential models. Finally, we present the complexity of preferential team-based reasoning for two natural representations. This includes novel complexity results for classical (non-team-based) preferential reasoning.

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.

Expressing system specifications using Computation Tree Logic (CTL) formulas, formalising programs using Kripke structures, and then model checking the system is an established workflow in program verification and has wide applications in AI. In this paper, we consider the task of model enumeration, which asks for a uniform stream of output systems that satisfy the given specification. We show that, given a CTL formula and a system (potentially falsified by the formula), enumerating satisfying submodels is always hard for CTL--regardless of which subset of CTL-operators is considered. As a silver lining on the horizon, we present fragments via restrictions on the allowed Boolean functions that still allow for fast enumeration.

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.

In this paper, we consider counting and projected model counting of extensions in abstract argumentation for various semantics, including credulous reasoning. When asking for projected counts, we are interested in counting the number of extensions of a given argumentation framework, while multiple extensions that are identical when restricted to the projected arguments count as only one projected extension. We establish classical complexity results and parameterized complexity results when the problems are parameterized by the treewidth of the undirected argumentation graph. To obtain upper bounds for counting projected extensions, we introduce novel algorithms that exploit small treewidth of the undirected argumentation graph of the input instance by dynamic programming. Our algorithms run in double or triple exponential time in the treewidth, depending on the semantics under consideration. Finally, we establish lower bounds of bounded treewidth algorithms for counting extensions and projected extension under the exponential time hypothesis (ETH).

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.

In this article, we introduce a notion of backdoors to Reiter’s propositional default logic and study structural properties of it. Also we consider the problems of backdoor detection (parameterised by the solution size) as well as backdoor evaluation (parameterised by the size of the given backdoor) for various kinds of target classes (CNF, KROM, MONOTONE) and all SCHAEFER classes. Also, we study generalisations of HORN-formulas, namely QHORN, RHORN, as well as DUALHORN. For these classes, we also classify the computational complexity of the implication problem. We show that backdoor detection is fixed-parameter tractable for the considered target classes and prove a complete trichotomy for backdoor evaluation. The problems are either fixed-parameter tractable, para-DeltaP2-complete, or para-NP-complete, depending on the target class.

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.

Abstract Logarithmic space-bounded complexity classes such as $$\textbf{L} $$ L and $$\textbf{NL} $$ NL play a central role in space-bounded computation. The study of counting versions of these complexity classes have lead to several interesting insights into the structure of computational problems such as computing the determinant and counting paths in directed acyclic graphs. Though parameterised complexity theory was initiated roughly three decades ago by Downey and Fellows, a satisfactory study of parameterised logarithmic space-bounded computation was developed only in the last decade by Elberfeld, Stockhusen and Tantau (IPEC 2013, Algorithmica 2015). In this paper, we introduce a new framework for parameterised counting in logspace, inspired by the parameterised space-bounded models developed by Elberfeld, Stockhusen and Tantau. They defined the operators $$\textbf{para}_{\textbf{W}}$$ paraW and $$\textbf{para}_\beta $$ paraβ for parameterised space complexity classes by allowing bounded nondeterminism with multiple-read and read-once access, respectively. Using these operators, they characterised the parameterised complexity of natural problems on graphs. In the spirit of the operators $$\textbf{para}_{\textbf{W}}$$ paraW and $$\textbf{para}_\beta $$ paraβ by Stockhusen and Tantau, we introduce variants based on tail-nondeterminism, $$\textbf{para}_{{\textbf{W}}[1]}$$ paraW[1] and $$\textbf{para}_{\beta {\textbf{tail}}}$$ paraβtail . Then, we consider counting versions of all four operators and apply them to the class $$\textbf{L} $$ L . We obtain several natural complete problems for the resulting classes: counting of paths in digraphs, counting first-order models for formulas, and counting graph homomorphisms. Furthermore, we show that the complexity of a parameterised variant of the determinant function for (0, 1)-matrices is $$\#\textbf{para}_{\beta {\textbf{tail}}}\textbf{L} $$ #paraβtailL -hard and can be written as the difference of two functions in $$\#\textbf{para}_{\beta {\textbf{tail}}}\textbf{L} $$ #paraβtailL . These problems exhibit the richness of the introduced counting classes. Our results further indicate interesting structural characteristics of these classes. For example, we show that the closure of $$\#\textbf{para}_{\beta {\textbf{tail}}}\textbf{L} $$ #paraβtailL under parameterised logspace parsimonious reductions coincides with $$\#\textbf{para}_\beta \textbf{L} $$ #paraβL . In other words, in the setting of read-once access to nondeterministic bits, tail-nondeterminism coincides with unbounded nondeterminism modulo parameterised reductions. Initiating the study of closure properties of these parameterised logspace counting classes, we show that all introduced classes are closed under addition and multiplication, and those without tail-nondeterminism are closed under parameterised logspace parsimonious reductions. Finally, we want to emphasise the significance of this topic by providing a promising outlook highlighting several open problems and directions for further research.

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).

In this paper, we study a novel approach to asynchronous hyperproperties by reconsidering the foundations of temporal team semantics. We consider three logics: , and , which are obtained by adding quantification over so-called time evaluation functions controlling the asynchronous progress of traces. We then relate synchronous to our new logics and show how it can be embedded into them. We show that the model checking problem for with Boolean disjunctions is highly undecidable by encoding recurrent computations of non-deterministic 2-counter machines. Finally, we present a translation from to Alternating Asynchronous Büchi Automata and obtain decidability results for the path checking problem as well as restricted variants of the model checking and satisfiability problems.

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.

Description logics (DLs) are knowledge representation languages that are used in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). A common technique is to query DL knowledge bases, e.g., by Boolean Datalog queries, and ask for entailment. But real world knowledge-bases are often obtained by combining data from various sources. This, inherently, might result in certain inconsistencies (with respect to a given query) and requires to estimate a degree of inconsistency before using a knowledge-base. In this paper, we provide a complexity analysis of fixed-domain non-entailment (NE) on Datalog programs for well-established families of knowledge bases (KBs). We exhibit a detailed complexity map for the decision cases, counting and projected counting, which may serve as a quantitative measure for inconsistency of a KB with respect to a query. Our results show that NE is natural for the second, third, and fourth level of the polynomial (counting) hierarchy depending on the type of the studied query (stratified, normal, disjunctive) and one level higher for the projected versions. Further, we show fixed-parameter tractability by bounding the treewidth, provide a constructive algorithm, and show its theoretical limitation in terms of conditional lower bounds.

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.

We investigate the computational complexity of the satisfiability problem of modal inclusion logic. We distinguish two variants of the problem: one for the strict and another one for the lax semantics. Both problems turn out to be EXPTIME-complete on general structures. Finally, we show how for a specific class of structures NEXPTIME-completeness for these problems under strict semantics can be achieved.

In this paper, we consider counting and projected model counting of extensions in abstract argumentation for various semantics. When asking for projected counts we are interested in counting the number of extensions of a given argumentation framework while multiple extensions that are identical when restricted to the projected arguments count as only one projected extension. We establish classical complexity results and parameterized complexity results when the problems are parameterized by treewidth of the undirected argumentation graph. To obtain upper bounds for counting projected extensions, we introduce novel algorithms that exploit small treewidth of the undirected argumentation graph of the input instance by dynamic programming (DP). Our algorithms run in time double or triple exponential in the treewidth depending on the considered semantics. Finally, we take the exponential time hypothesis (ETH) into account and establish lower bounds of bounded treewidth algorithms for counting extensions and projected extension.

In the present paper, we introduce the backdoor set approach into the field of temporal logic for the global fragment of linear temporal logic. We study the parameterized complexity of the satisfiability problem parameterized by the size of the backdoor. We distinguish between backdoor detection and evaluation of backdoors into the fragments of Horn and Krom formulas. Here we classify the operator fragments of globally-operators for past/future/always, and the combination of them. Detection is shown to be fixed-parameter tractable whereas the complexity of evaluation behaves differently. We show that for Krom formulas the problem is paraNP-complete. For Horn formulas, the complexity is shown to be either fixed parameter tractable or paraNP-complete depending on the considered operator fragment.

Abstract Propositional and modal inclusion logic are formalisms that belong to the family of logics based on team semantics. This article investigates the model checking and validity problems of these logics. We identify complexity bounds for both problems, covering both lax and strict team semantics. By doing so, we come close to finalizing the programme that aims to completely classify the complexities of the basic reasoning problems for modal and propositional dependence, independence and inclusion logics.

We apply the concept of formula treewidth and pathwidth to computation tree logic, linear temporal logic, and the full branching time logic. Several representations of formulas as graphlike structures are discussed, and corresponding notions of treewidth and pathwidth are introduced. As an application for such structures, we present a classification in terms of parametrised complexity of the satisfiability problem, where we make use of Courcelle’s famous theorem for recognition of certain classes of structures. Our classification shows a dichotomy between W[1]-hard and fixed-parameter tractable operator fragments almost independently of the chosen graph representation. The only fragments that are proven to be fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) are those that are restricted to the X operator. By investigating Boolean operator fragments in the sense of Post’s lattice, we achieve the same complexity as in the unrestricted case if the set of available Boolean functions can express the function “negation of the implication.” Conversely, we show containment in FPT for almost all other clones.

In the present paper, we introduce the backdoor set approach into the field of temporal logic for the global fragment of linear temporal logic. We study the parameterized complexity of the satisfiability problem parameterized by the size of the backdoor. We distinguish between backdoor detection and evaluation of backdoors into the fragments of Horn and Krom formulas. Here we classify the operator fragments of globally-operators for past/future/always, and the combination of them. Detection is shown to be fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) whereas the complexity of evaluation behaves differently. We show that for Krom formulas the problem is paraNP-complete. For Horn formulas, the complexity is shown to be either fixed parameter tractable or paraNP-complete depending on the considered operator fragment.

The aim of this study is to understand the inherent expressive power of CTL operators. We investigate the complexity of model checking for all CTL fragments with one CTL operator and arbitrary Boolean operators. This gives us a fingerprint of each CTL operator. The comparison between the fingerprints yields a hierarchy of the operators that mirrors their strength with respect to model checking.

We introduce two variants of computation tree logic CTL based on team semantics: an asynchronous one and a synchronous one. For both variants we investigate the computational complexity of the satisfiability as well as the model checking problem. The satisfiability problem is shown to be EXPTIME-complete. Here it does not matter which of the two semantics are considered. For model checking we prove a PSPACE-completeess for the synchronous case, and show P-completeness for the asynchronous case. Furthermore we prove several interesting fundamental properties of both semantics.

We classify the complexity of the LTL satisfiability and model checking problems for several standard parameterisations. The investigated parameters are temporal depth, number of propositional variables and formula treewidth, resp., pathwidth. We show that all operator fragments of LTL under the investigated parameterisations are intractable in the sense of parameterised complexity.

Default logic was introduced by Reiter in 1980. In 1992, Gottlob classified the complexity of the extension existence problem for propositional default logic as Σ2p-complete, and the complexity of the credulous and skeptical reasoning problem as Σ2p-complete, respectively Π2p-complete. Additionally, he investigated restrictions on the default rules, i.e. semi-normal default rules. Selman used in 1992 a similar approach with disjunction-free and unary default rules. In this article, we systematically restrict the set of allowed propositional connectives. We give a complete complexity classification for all sets of Boolean functions in the meaning of Post's lattice for all three common decision problems for propositional default logic. We show that the complexity is a hexachotomy (⁠Σ2p-, Δ2p-, NP-, P-, NL-complete, trivial) for the extension existence problem, while for the credulous and skeptical reasoning problem we obtain similar classifications without trivial cases.

Autoepistemic logic extends propositional logic by the modal operator L . A formula φ that is preceded by an L is said to be “believed.” The logic was introduced by Moore in 1985 for modeling an ideally rational agent’s behavior and reasoning about his own beliefs. In this article we analyze all Boolean fragments of autoepistemic logic with respect to the computational complexity of the three most common decision problems expansion existence, brave reasoning and cautious reasoning. As a second contribution we classify the computational complexity of checking that a given set of formulae characterizes a stable expansion and that of counting the number of stable expansions of a given knowledge base. We improve the best known Δ 2 p -upper bound on the former problem to completeness for the second level of the Boolean hierarchy. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper analyzing counting problem for autoepistemic logic.

The model checking problem for CTL is known to be P-complete (Clarke, Emerson, and Sistla (1986), see Schnoebelen (2002)). We consider fragments of CTL obtained by restricting the use of temporal modalities or the use of negations---restrictions already studied for LTL by Sistla and Clarke (1985) and Markey (2004).For all these fragments, except for the trivial case without any temporal operator, we systematically prove model checking to be either inherently sequential (P-complete) or very efficiently parallelizable (LOGCFL-complete). For most fragments, however, model checking for CTL is already P-complete. Hence our results indicate that in most applications, approaching CTL model checking by parallelism will not result in the desired speed up. We also completely determine the complexity of the model checking problem for all fragments of the extensions ECTL, CTL+, and ECTL+.