Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) is a well-established formalism for modelling and reasoning over debates, with a wide range of applications. However, the high computational complexity of core reasoning tasks in ABA poses a significant challenge for its applicability. This issue is further aggravated when ABA frameworks (ABAFs) are instantiated into graph-based argumentation formalisms, such as Dung's Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) and Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks (SETAFs). In knowledge representation and reasoning, a key strategy to address computational intractability is to optimise reasoning over a given knowledge base through divide-and-conquer algorithms. A paradigmatic example of this approach is splitting, where extensions of a given framework are computed incrementally, by restricting the search space to sub-frameworks only, and then combining the obtained results. This approach has been successfully applied to AFs, for which also a parametrised version has been introduced under stable semantics. However, the exponential growth produced by the instantiation might undermine the usefulness of splitting on the argument graphs induced by ABAFs. To address this issue, our work investigates the concept of splitting on the knowledge base rather than on its graph-based instantiation. Furthermore, we generalise splitting to its parametrised version for ABAFs.

We consider a particular subclass of normal programs that we call simple guess-and-check (SGC) programs. SGC programs consist of guess rules (i.e. rules without positive body atoms) and arbitrary constraints. Many simple combinatorial problems such as graph coloring can be encoded via SGC programs. Moreover, constraint-free SGC programs are known to have a close relation to abstract argumentation frameworks. Our main result shows that for SGC programs the notions of strong and uniform equivalence coincide (in contrast to general normal programs), but do not amount to classical equivalence (as is the case of positive programs). Moreover, we study the characteristics of SE-models for SGC programs; this allows to check whether an arbitrary program (part) can be equivalently formulated within the simpler class of SGC programs. Finally, we briefly discuss our results in relation to other classes of programs.

Assumption-based argumentation (ABA) is a powerful defeasible reasoning formalism which is based on the interplay of assumptions, their contraries, and inference rules. ABA with preferences ( ABA + ) generalizes the basic model by allowing a qualitative comparison of assumptions. The integration of preferences however comes with a cost. In ABA + , the evaluation under two central and well-established semantics—grounded and complete semantics—is not guaranteed to yield an outcome. Moreover, while ABA frameworks without preferences allow for a graph-based representation in Dung-style frameworks, an according instantiation for general ABA + frameworks has not been established so far. In this work, we tackle both issues: First, we develop a novel abstract argumentation formalism based on set-to-set attacks. We show that our so-called Hyper Argumentation Frameworks (HYPAFs) capture the attack relation between assumptions in ABA + . Second, we exploit this correspondence between ABA + and HYPAFs to obtain relaxed variants of complete and grounded semantics for HYPAFs that yield an extension for all frameworks by design, while still faithfully generalizing the established semantics of Dung-style Argumentation Frameworks. Finally, we discuss basic properties and provide a thorough complexity analysis for both the abstract HYPAFs as well as ABA + .

Fragments of propositional logic, i.e., tailored sub-languages designed for neatly structured data, are relevant in many practical settings. This paper studies belief update in fragments (e.g., Horn, Krom, affine) that obey a desirable semantic closure condition. We assume update is guided by the well-known Katsuno-Mendelzon (KM) postulates, which in full propositional logic characterize update operators as choice functions guided by total or partial preorders over possible worlds. Because many useful fragments cannot express every connective (e.g., they often lack closure under disjunction), the KM axioms must be rephrased and supplemented to keep updates rational in these less expressive environments. Our main result is a set of representation theorems: once the KM postulates are adjusted, they capture exactly the update operators generated by suitably constrained total or partial preorders within the fragment. In addition, we clarify how revision works in fragments when partial preorders are allowed and also present concrete, fragment-friendly update operators.

In the study of logic programming, notions of equivalence play a significant role. This is due to the fact that under common nonmonotonic semantics, like answer-set programming, two programs sharing the same models (answer sets) does not necessarily yield that they are equivalent in all contexts. Whether this context concerns other program modules or just different data, distinguishes strong from uniform equivalence. We introduce a new notion of equivalence for logic programs under the answer-set semantics that allows to precisely compare and simplify programs that receive input from different sources (i.e., over different alphabets); a setting that previous equivalence notions have not considered, but has some interesting use cases, like data integration or belief merging. Our notion further generalizes relativized equivalence, where equivalence is only required over a parameterized context, and has the core concepts of strong and uniform equivalence as corner cases. We provide a model-theoretic characterization in the spirit of SE-models and establish some theoretical properties including a thorough complexity analysis. Furthermore, using our notion, we can pinpoint the known complexity gap between strong and uniform equivalence, giving insight into why the latter is harder than the former.

The grounding bottleneck in Answer Set Programming prohibits large instances from being solved. This is caused by a combinatorial explosion in the grounding phase of standard ground&solve systems. A promising alternative is Body-Decoupled Grounding (BDG), which grounds each body predicate on its own. However, BDG faces challenges in terms of worst-case grounding size and limited interoperability with other systems. This paper addresses shortcomings of BDG by introducing FastFound: an alternative foundedness check that significantly reduces grounding sizes, by grounding each predicate on its own. FastFound’s foundedness check is done implicitly, which leads to a quadratic reduction in grounding size. We start by introducing FastFound for tight normal rules, where we observe that this cannot be substantially improved. Then we extend FastFound to head-cycle-free programs and give novel interoperability results for full disjunctive programs. An experimental evaluation on our prototype shows promising results, as we solve more grounding-heavy tasks than both standard ground&solve systems and BDG.

Abstract The grounding bottleneck poses one of the key challenges that hinders the widespread adoption of answer set programming in industry. Hybrid grounding is a step in alleviating the bottleneck by combining the strength of standard bottom-up grounding with recently proposed techniques where rule bodies are decoupled during grounding. However, it has remained unclear when hybrid grounding shall use body-decoupled grounding (BDG) and when to use standard bottom-up grounding. In this paper, we address this issue by developing automated hybrid grounding: we introduce a splitting algorithm based on data-structural heuristics that detects when to use BDG and when standard grounding is beneficial. We base our heuristics on the structure of rules and an estimation procedure that incorporates the data of the instance. The experiments conducted on our prototypical implementation demonstrate promising results, which show an improvement on hard-to-ground scenarios, whereas on hard-to-solve instances, we approach state-of-the-art performance.

Assumption-based argumentation (ABA) is a powerful defeasible reasoning formalism which is based on the interplay of assumptions, their contraries, and inference rules. ABA with preferences (ABA+) generalizes the basic model by allowing qualitative comparison between assumptions. The integration of preferences however comes with a cost. In ABA+, the evaluation under two central and well-established semantics---grounded and complete semantics---is not guaranteed to yield an outcome. Moreover, while ABA frameworks without preferences allow for a graph-based representation in Dung-style frameworks, an according instantiation for general ABA+ frameworks has not been established so far. In this work, we tackle both issues: First, we develop a novel abstract argumentation formalism based on set-to-set attacks. We show that our so-called Hyper Argumentation Frameworks (HYPAFs) capture ABA+. Second, we propose relaxed variants of complete and grounded semantics for HYPAFs that yield an extension for all frameworks by design, while still faithfully generalizing the established semantics of Dung-style Argumentation Frameworks. We exploit the newly established correspondence between ABA+ and HYPAFs to obtain variants for grounded and complete ABA+ semantics that are guaranteed to yield an outcome. Finally, we discuss basic properties and provide a complexity analysis. Along the way, we settle the computational complexity of several ABA+ semantics.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a prominent rule-based language for knowledge representation and reasoning with roots in logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning. The aim to capture the essence of removing (ir)relevant details in ASP programs led to the investigation of different notions, from strong persistence (SP) forgetting, to faithful abstractions, and, recently, strong simplifications, where the latter two can be seen as relaxed and strengthened notions of forgetting, respectively. Although it was observed that these notions are related, especially given that they have characterizations through the semantics for strong equivalence, it remained unclear whether they can be brought together. In this work, we bridge this gap by introducing a novel relativized equivalence notion, which is a relaxation of the recent simplification notion, that is able to capture all related notions from the literature. We provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for relativized simplifiability, which shows that the challenging part is for when the context programs do not contain all the atoms to remove. We then introduce an operator that combines projection and a relaxation of SP-forgetting to obtain the relativized simplifications. We furthermore provide complexity results that complete the overall picture.

In this system description we briefly describe the GSAF solver and verifier for SETAFs. The solver is a genuine CDCL-based solver and facilitates the creation of certificates to prove the correctness of negative results if a given instance is deemed to have no extensions. Furthermore, the accompanying verifier can be used to verify such certificates to ensure the correctness thereof.

In this paper, we study the effect of preferences in abstract argumentation under a claim-centric perspective. Recent work has revealed that semantical and computational properties can change when reasoning is performed on claim-level rather than on the argument-level, while under certain natural restrictions (arguments with the same claims have the same outgoing attacks) these properties are conserved. We now investigate these effects when, in addition, preferences have to be taken into account and consider four prominent reductions to handle preferences between arguments. As we shall see, these reductions give rise to four new classes of claim-augmented argumentation frameworks. These classes behave differently from each other with respect to semantic properties and computational complexity, but also in connection with structured argumentation formalisms such as assumption-based argumentation. This strengthens the view that the actual choice for handling preferences has to be taken with care.

Argumentation frameworks (AFs) are a key formalism in AI research. Their semantics have been investigated in terms of principles, which define characteristic properties in order to deliver guidance for analyzing established and developing new semantics. Because of the simple structure of AFs, many desired properties hold almost trivially, at the same time hiding interesting concepts behind syntactic notions. We extend the principle-based approach to argumentation frameworks with collective attacks (SETAFs) and provide a comprehensive overview of common principles for their semantics. Our analysis shows that investigating principles based on decomposing the given SETAF (e.g. directionality or SCC-recursiveness) poses additional challenges in comparison to usual AFs. We introduce the notion of the reduct as well as the modularization principle for SETAFs which will prove beneficial for this kind of investigation. We then demonstrate how our findings can be utilized for incremental computation of extensions and show how we can use graph properties of the frameworks to speed up these algorithms.

Abstract Choice logics constitute a family of propositional logics and are used for the representation of preferences, with especially qualitative choice logic (QCL) being an established formalism with numerous applications in artificial intelligence. While computational properties and applications of choice logics have been studied in the literature, only few results are known about the proof-theoretic aspects of their use. We propose a sound and complete sequent calculus for preferred model entailment in QCL, where a formula F is entailed by a QCL-theory T if F is true in all preferred models of T. The calculus is based on labeled sequent and refutation calculi, and can be easily adapted for different purposes. For instance, using the calculus as a cornerstone, calculi for other choice logics such as conjunctive choice logic (CCL) and lexicographic choice logic (LCL) can be obtained in a straightforward way.

In this paper, we study the effect of preferences in abstract argumentation under a claim-centric perspective. Recent work has revealed that semantical and computational properties can change when reasoning is performed on claim-level rather than on the argument-level, while under certain natural restrictions (arguments with the same claims have the same outgoing attacks) these properties are conserved. We now investigate these effects when, in addition, preferences have to be taken into account and consider four prominent reductions to handle preferences between arguments. As we shall see, these reductions give rise to different classes of claim-augmented argumentation frameworks, and behave differently in terms of semantic properties and computational complexity. This strengthens the view that the actual choice for handling preferences has to be taken with care.

Answer Set Programming is widely applied research area for knowledge representation and for solving industrial domains. One of the challenges of this formalism focuses on the so-called grounding bottleneck, which addresses the efficient replacement of first-order variables by means of domain values. Recently, there have been several works in this direction, ranging from lazy grounding, hybrid solving, over translational approaches. Inspired by a translation from non-ground normal programs to ground disjunctive programs, we attack the grounding bottleneck from a more general angle. We provide a polynomial reduction for grounding disjunctive programs of bounded domain size by reducing to propositional epistemic logic programs (ELPs). By slightly adapting our reduction, we show new complexity results for non-ground programs that adhere to the measure treewidth. We complement these results by matching lower bounds under the exponential time hypothesis, ruling out significantly better algorithms.

Simplification of logic programs under the answer-set semantics has been studied from the very beginning of the field. One natural simplification is the removal of atoms that are deemed irrelevant. While equivalence-preserving rewritings are well understood and incorporated in state-of-the-art systems, more careful rewritings in the realm of strong or uniform equivalence have received considerably less attention. This might be due to the fact that these equivalence notions rely on comparisons with respect to context programs that remain the same for both the original and the simplified program. In this work, we pursue the idea that the atoms considered irrelevant are disregarded accordingly in the context programs of the simplification, and propose novel equivalence notions for this purpose. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for these kinds of simplifiability of programs, and show that such simplifications, if possible, can actually be achieved by just projecting the atoms from the programs themselves. We furthermore provide complexity results for the problems of deciding simplifiability and equivalence testing.

Claim-augmented argumentation frameworks (CAFs) provide a formal basis to analyze conclusion-oriented problems in argumentation by adapting a claim-focused perspective; they extend Dung AFs by associating a claim to each argument representing its conclusion. This additional layer offers various possibilities to generalize abstract argumentation semantics, i.e. the re-interpretation of arguments in terms of their claims can be performed at different stages in the evaluation of the framework: One approach is to perform the evaluation entirely at argument-level before interpreting arguments by their claims (inherited semantics); alternatively, one can perform certain steps in the process (e.g., maximization) already in terms of the arguments' claims (claim-level semantics). The inherent difference of these approaches not only potentially results in different outcomes but, as we will show in this paper, is also mirrored in terms of computational complexity. To this end, we provide a comprehensive complexity analysis of the four main reasoning problems with respect to claim-level variants of preferred, naive, stable, semi-stable and stage semantics and complete the complexity results of inherited semantics by providing corresponding results for semi-stable and stage semantics. Furthermore, we provide complexity results for these types of frameworks when restricted to specific graph classes and when parameterized by the number of claims within the framework. Moreover, we show that deciding, whether for a given framework the two approaches of a semantics coincide (concurrence) can be surprisingly hard, ranging up to the third level of the polynomial hierarchy.

Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) are a key formalism in AI research nowadays. Claims are an inherent part of each argument; they substantially determine the structure of the abstract representation. Nevertheless, they are often not taken into account on the abstract level, which restricts the modeling capacities of AFs to problems that do not involve claims in the evaluation. In this work, we address this shortcoming and conduct a structural analysis of claim-based argumentation semantics utilizing claim-augmented argumentation frameworks (CAFs) which extend AFs by assigning a claim to each argument. Our main contributions are as follows: We first propose novel variants for preferred, naive, stable, semi-stable, and stage semantics based on claim-defeat and claim-set maximization, complementing existing CAF semantics. Among our findings is that for a certain subclass, namely well-formed CAFs, the different versions of preferred and stable semantics coincide, which is not the case for the other semantics. We then conduct a principle-based analysis of the semantics with respect to general and well-formed CAFs. Finally, we study the expressiveness of the semantics by characterizing their signatures. In summary, this paper provides a thorough analysis of fundamental properties of abstract argumentation semantics (along the lines of existing results for AFs) but from the perspective of the claims the arguments represent. This shift of perspective provides novel results which we deem relevant when abstract argumentation is used in an instantiation-based setting.

Argumentation frameworks (AFs) are a core formalism in the field of formal argumentation. As most standard computational tasks regarding AFs are hard for the first or second level of the Polynomial Hierarchy, a variety of algorithmic approaches to achieve manageable runtimes have been considered in the past. Among them, the backdoor-approach and the treewidth-approach turned out to yield fixed-parameter tractable fragments. However, many applications yield high parameter values for these methods, often rendering them infeasible in practice. We introduce the backdoor-treewidth approach for abstract argumentation, combining the best of both worlds with a guaranteed parameter value that does not exceed the minimum of the backdoor- and treewidth-parameter. In particular, we formally define backdoor-treewidth and establish fixed-parameter tractability for standard reasoning tasks of abstract argumentation. Moreover, we provide systems to find and exploit backdoors of small width, and conduct systematic experiments evaluating the new parameter.

In this paper, we study conditional preferences in abstract argumentation by introducing a new generalization of Dung-style argumentation frameworks (AFs) called Conditional Preference-based AFs (CPAFs). Each subset of arguments in a CPAF can be associated with its own preference relation. This generalizes existing approaches for preference-handling in abstract argumentation, and allows us to reason about conditional preferences in a general way. We conduct a principle-based analysis of CPAFs and compare them to related generalizations of AFs. Specifically, we highlight similarities and differences to Modgil’s Extended AFs and show that our formalism can capture Value-based AFs.

Abstract Argumentation is a key formalism to resolve conflicts in incomplete or inconsistent knowledge bases. Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) and extended versions thereof turned out to be a fruitful approach to reason in a flexible and intuitive setting. The addition of collective attacks, we refer to this class of frameworks as SETAFs, enriches the expressiveness and allows for compacter instantiations from knowledge bases, while maintaining the computational complexity of standard argumentation frameworks. This means, however, that standard reasoning tasks are intractable and worst-case runtimes for known standard algorithms can be exponential. In order to still obtain manageable runtimes, we exploit graph properties of these frameworks. In this paper, we initiate a parameterized complexity analysis of SETAFs in terms of the popular graph parameter treewidth. While treewidth is well studied in the context of AFs with their graph structure, it cannot be directly applied to the (directed) hypergraphs representing SETAFs. We thus introduce two generalizations of treewidth based on different graphs that can be associated with SETAFs, i.e., the primal graph and the incidence graph. We show that while some of these notions allow for parameterized tractability results, reasoning remains intractable for other notions, even if we fix the parameter to a small constant.

In this paper, we give an overview of several recent proposals for non-admissible non-naive semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks. We highlight the similarities and differences between weak admissibility-based approaches and undecidedness-blocking approaches using examples and principles as well as a study of their computational complexity. We introduce a kind of strengthened undecidedness-blocking semantics combining some of the distinctive behaviours of weak admissibility-based semantics with the lower complexity of undecidedness-blocking approaches. We call it loop semantics, because in our new semantics, an argument can only be undecided if it is part of a loop of undecided arguments. Our paper shows how a principle-based approach and a complexity-based approach can be used in tandem to further develop the foundations of formal argumentation.

Answer-Set Programming (ASP) has seen tremendous progress over the last two decades and is nowadays successfully applied in many real-world domains. However, for certain types of problems, the well-known ASP grounding bottleneck still causes severe problems. This becomes virulent when grounding of rules, where the variables have to be replaced by constants, leads to a ground pro- gram that is too huge to be processed by the ASP solver. In this work, we tackle this problem by a novel method that decouples non-ground atoms in rules in order to delegate the evaluation of rule bodies to the solving process. Our procedure translates a non-ground normal program into a ground disjunctive program that is exponential only in the maximum predicate arity, and thus polynomial if this arity is assumed to be bounded by a constant. We demonstrate the feasibility of this new method experimentally by comparing it to standard ASP technology in terms of grounding size, grounding time and total runtime.

Extending the popular Answer Set Programming (ASP) paradigm by introspective reasoning capacities has received increasing interest within the last years. Particular attention is given to the formalism of epistemic logic programs (ELPs) where standard rules are equipped with modal operators which allow to express conditions on literals for being known or possible, i.e., contained in all or some answer sets, respectively. ELPs thus deliver multiple collections of answer sets, known as world views. Employing ELPs for reasoning problems so far has mainly been restricted to standard deci- sion problems (complexity analysis) and enumeration (development of systems) of world views. In this paper, we first establish quantitative reasoning for ELPs, where the acceptance of a certain set of literals depends on the number (proportion) of world views that are compatible with the set. Second, we present a novel system capable of efficiently solving the underlying counting problems required for quantitative reasoning. Our system exploits the graph-based measure treewidth by iteratively finding (graph) abstractions of ELPs.

Qualitative Choice Logic (QCL) and Conjunctive Choice Logic (CCL) are formalisms for preference handling, with especially QCL being well established in the field of AI. So far, analyses of these logics need to be done on a case-by-case basis, albeit they share several common features. This calls for a more general choice logic framework, with QCL and CCL as well as some of their derivatives being particular instantiations. We provide such a framework, which allows us, on the one hand, to easily define new choice logics and, on the other hand, to examine properties of different choice logics in a uniform setting. In particular, we investigate strong equivalence, a core concept in non-classical logics for understanding formula simplification, and computational complexity. Our analysis also yields new results for QCL and CCL. For example, we show that the main reasoning task regarding preferred models of choice logic formulas is Θ2P-complete for QCL and CCL, while being Δ2P-complete for a newly introduced choice logic. The complexity of preferred model entailment for choice logic theories ranges from coNP to Π2P.

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) constitute one of the most powerful formalisms in abstract argumentation. Their high computational complexity poses, however, certain challenges when designing efficient systems. In this paper, we tackle this issue by (i) analyzing the complexity of ADFs under structural restrictions, (ii) presenting novel algorithms which make use of these insights, and (iii) implementing these algorithms via (multiple) calls to SAT solvers. An empirical evaluation of the resulting implementation on ADF benchmarks generated from ICCMA competitions shows that our solver is able to outperform state-of-the-art ADF systems.

We study the computational complexity of abstract argumentation semantics based on weak admissibility, a recently introduced concept to deal with arguments of self-defeating nature. Our results reveal that semantics based on weak admissibility are of much higher complexity (under typical assumptions) compared to all argumentation semantics which have been analysed in terms of complexity so far. In fact, we show PSPACE-completeness of all non-trivial standard decision problems for weak-admissible based semantics. We then investigate potential tractable fragments and show that restricting the frameworks under consideration to certain graph-classes significantly reduces the complexity. We also show that weak-admissibility based extensions can be computed by dividing the given graph into its strongly connected components (SCCs). This technique ensures that the bottleneck when computing extensions is the size of the largest SCC instead of the size of the graph itself and therefore contributes to the search for fixed-parameter tractable implementations for reasoning with weak admissibility.

Abstract Bounded treewidth is one of the most cited combinatorial invariants in the literature. It was also applied for solving several counting problems efficiently. A canonical counting problem is #Sat, which asks to count the satisfying assignments of a Boolean formula. Recent work shows that benchmarking instances for #Sat often have reasonably small treewidth. This paper deals with counting problems for instances of small treewidth. We introduce a general framework to solve counting questions based on state-of-the-art database management systems (DBMSs). Our framework takes explicitly advantage of small treewidth by solving instances using dynamic programming (DP) on tree decompositions (TD). Therefore, we implement the concept of DP into a DBMS (PostgreSQL), since DP algorithms are already often given in terms of table manipulations in theory. This allows for elegant specifications of DP algorithms and the use of SQL to manipulate records and tables, which gives us a natural approach to bring DP algorithms into practice. To the best of our knowledge, we present the first approach to employ a DBMS for algorithms on TDs. A key advantage of our approach is that DBMSs naturally allow for dealing with huge tables with a limited amount of main memory (RAM).

We study the computational complexity of abstract argumentation semantics based on weak admissibility, a recently introduced concept to deal with arguments of self-defeating nature. Our results reveal that semantics based on weak admissibility are of much higher complexity (under typical assumptions) compared to all argumentation semantics which have been analysed in terms of complexity so far. In fact, we show PSPACE-completeness of all non-trivial standard decision problems for weak-admissible based semantics. We then investigate potential tractable fragments and show that restricting the frameworks under consideration to certain graph-classes significantly reduces the complexity. As a strategy for implementation we also provide a polynomial-time reduction to DATALOG with stratified negation.

Claim-augmented argumentation frameworks (CAFs) provide a formal basis to analyze conclusion-oriented problems in argumentation by adapting a claim-focused perspective; they extend Dung AFs by associating a claim to each argument representing its conclusion. This additional layer offers various possibilities to generalize abstract argumentation semantics as the re-interpretation of arguments in terms of their claims can be performed at different stages in the evaluation of the framework: One approach is to perform the evaluation entirely at argument-level before interpreting arguments by their claims (inherited semantics); alternatively, one can perform certain steps in the process (e.g., maximization) already in terms of the arguments’ claims (claim-level semantics). The inherent difference of these approaches not only potentially results in different outcomes but, as we will show in this paper, is also mirrored in terms of computational complexity. To this end, we provide a comprehensive complexity analysis of the four main reasoning problems with respect to claim-level variants of preferred, naive, stable, semi-stable and stage semantics and complete the complexity results of inherited semantics by providing corresponding results for semi-stable and stage semantics. Moreover, we show that deciding, whether for a given framework the two approaches of a semantics coincide (concurrence) can be surprisingly hard, ranging up to the third level of the polynomial hierarchy.

Qualitative Choice Logic (QCL) and Conjunctive Choice Logic (CCL) are formalisms for preference handling, with especially QCL being well established in the field of AI. So far, analyses of these logics need to be done on a case-by-case basis, albeit they share several common features. This calls for a more general choice logic framework, with QCL and CCL as well as some of their derivatives being particular instantiations. We provide such a framework, which allows us, on the one hand, to easily define new choice logics and, on the other hand, to examine properties of different choice logics in a uniform setting. In particular, we investigate strong equivalence, a core concept in non-classical logics for understanding formula simplification, and computational complexity. Our analysis also yields new results for QCL and CCL. For example, we show that the main reasoning task regarding preferred models is ϴ₂P-complete for QCL and CCL, while being Δ₂P-complete for a newly introduced choice logic.

Argumentation frameworks are a core formalism in the field of formal argumentation, with several semantics being proposed in the literature. Among them, preferred semantics is one of the most popular but comes with relatively high complexity. In fact, deciding whether an argument is skeptically accepted, i.e. contained in each preferred extension, is Pi^P_2-complete. In this work we study the complexity of this problem w.r.t. the length of the cycles in the considered AF. Our results show which bounds are necessary to decrease the complexity to coNP and P, respectively. We also consider argumentation frameworks with collective attacks and achieve Pi^P_2-hardness already for cycles of length 4.

This article deals with advanced notions of equivalence between nonmonotonic logic programs under the answer-set semantics, a topic of considerable interest, because such notions form the basis for program verification and are useful for program optimisation, debugging, and modular programming. In fact, there is extensive research in answer-set programming (ASP) dealing with different notions of equivalence between programs. Prominent among these notions is uniform equivalence , which checks whether two programs have the same semantics when joined with an arbitrary set of facts. In this article, we study a family of more fine-grained versions of uniform equivalence, viz. relativised uniform equivalence with projection , which extends standard uniform equivalence in terms of two additional parameters: one for specifying the input alphabet and one for specifying the output alphabet for programs. In particular, the second parameter is used for projecting answer sets to a set of designated output atoms. Answer-set projection, in particular, allows to compare programs that make use of different auxiliary atoms, which is important for practical programming aspects. We introduce novel semantic characterisations for the program correspondence problems under consideration and analyse their computational complexity. In the general case, deciding these problems lies on the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. Therefore, this task cannot be efficiently reduced to propositional answer-set programs itself (under the usual complexity-theoretic assumptions). However, reductions to quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs) are feasible. Indeed, we provide efficient (in fact, linear-time constructible) reductions to QBFs and discuss simplifications for certain special cases. These QBF reductions yield the basis for a prototype implementation, the system cc ⊤, for deciding correspondence problems by using off-the-shelf QBF solvers. We discuss an application of cc ⊤ for verifying the correctness of solutions by students drawn from a laboratory course on logic programming and knowledge representation at the Technische Universität Wien, employing relativised uniform equivalence with projection as the underlying program correspondence notion.

Abstract Extending the popular answer set programming paradigm by introspective reasoning capacities has received increasing interest within the last years. Particular attention is given to the formalism of epistemic logic programs (ELPs) where standard rules are equipped with modal operators which allow to express conditions on literals for being known or possible, that is, contained in all or some answer sets, respectively. ELPs thus deliver multiple collections of answer sets, known as world views. Employing ELPs for reasoning problems so far has mainly been restricted to standard decision problems (complexity analysis) and enumeration (development of systems) of world views. In this paper, we take a next step and contribute to epistemic logic programming in two ways: First, we establish quantitative reasoning for ELPs, where the acceptance of a certain set of literals depends on the number (proportion) of world views that are compatible with the set. Second, we present a novel system that is capable of efficiently solving the underlying counting problems required to answer such quantitative reasoning problems. Our system exploits the graph-based measure treewidth and works by iteratively finding and refining (graph) abstractions of an ELP program. On top of these abstractions, we apply dynamic programming that is combined with utilizing existing search-based solvers like (e)clingo for hard combinatorial subproblems that appear during solving. It turns out that our approach is competitive with existing systems that were introduced recently.

Epistemic logic programs (ELPs) are a popular generalization of standard Answer Set Programming (ASP) providing means for reasoning over answer sets within the language. This richer formalism comes at the price of higher computational complexity reaching up to the fourth level of the polynomial hierarchy. However, in contrast to standard ASP, dedicated investigations towards tractability have not been undertaken yet. In this paper, we give first results in this direction and show that central ELP problems can be solved in linear time for ELPs exhibiting structural properties in terms of bounded treewidth. We also provide a full dynamic programming algorithm that adheres to these bounds. Finally, we show that applying treewidth to a novel dependency structure—given in terms of epistemic literals—allows to bound the number of ASP solver calls in typical ELP solving procedures.

The paper provides an initial study on how ranking semantics in argumentation have to be handled when leaving the purely abstract setting. We employ claim-augmented frameworks where each argument is associated to a claim it stands for. We propose liftings from argument- to claim-level in two veins: for desired properties and for actual rankings. Our main contribution is to investigate whether the satisfaction of properties by argument-based ranking semantics carries over to the lifted, claim-based, variants of the corresponding properties and semantics.

Generalizing the attack structure in argumentation frameworks (AFs) has been studied in different ways. Most prominently, the binary attack relation of Dung frameworks has been extended to the notion of collective attacks. The resulting formalism is often termed SETAFs. Another approach is provided via abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs), where acceptance conditions specify the relation between arguments; restricting these conditions naturally allows for so-called support-free ADFs. The aim of the paper is to shed light on the relation between these two different approaches. To this end, we investigate and compare the expressiveness of SETAFs and support-free ADFs under the lens of 3-valued semantics. Our results show that it is only the presence of unsatisfiable acceptance conditions in support-free ADFs that discriminate the two approaches.

Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) are a popular conceptual tool to define semantics for advanced argumentation formalisms. Hereby, arguments representing a possible inference of a claim are constructed and an attack relation between arguments indicates certain conflicts between the claim of one argument and the inference of another. Based on this abstract model, sets of jointly acceptable arguments are then gathered and finally interpreted in terms of their claims. Argumentation formalisms following this type of instantiating Dung AFs naturally produce several arguments with the same claim. This causes several issues and challenges for argumentation systems: on the one hand, the relation between claims remains implicit and, on the other hand, determining the acceptance of claims requires additional computations on top of argument acceptance. An instantiation that avoids this situation could provide additional insights and advantages, thus complementing the standard instantiation process via Dung AFs. Consequently, the research question we tackle is as follows: Can one combine different arguments sharing the same claim to a single abstract argument without affecting the overall results (and which abstract formalisms can serve such a purpose)? As a main result we show that a certain class of frameworks, where arguments with the same claim have the same outgoing attacks, can be equivalently (for all standard semantics) represented as argumentation frameworks with collective attacks where each claim occurs in exactly one argument. We further identify a class of frameworks where one even obtains an equivalent Dung AF with just one argument per claim.

Claim-augmented argumentation frameworks (CAFs) constitute a generic formalism for conflict resolution of conclusion-oriented problems in argumentation. CAFs extend Dung argumentation frameworks (AFs) by assigning a claim to each argument. So far, semantics for CAFs are defined with respect to the underlying AF by interpreting the extensions of the respective AF semantics in terms of the claims of the accepted arguments; we refer to them as inherited semantics of CAFs. A central concept of many argumentation semantics is maximization, which can be done with respect to arguments as in preferred semantics, or with respect to the range as in semi-stable semantics. However, common instantiations of argumentation frameworks require maximality on the claim-level and inherited semantics often fail to provide maximal claim-sets even if the underlying AF semantics yields maximal argument sets. To address this issue, we investigate a different approach and introduce claim-level semantics (cl-semantics) for CAFs where maximization is performed on the claim-level. We compare these two approaches for five prominent semantics (preferred, naive, stable, semi-stable, and stage) and relate in total eleven CAF semantics to each other. Moreover, we show that for a certain subclass of CAFs, namely well-formed CAFs, the different versions of preferred and stable semantics coincide, which is not the case for the remaining semantics. We furthermore investigate a recently established translation between well-formed CAFs and SETAFs and show that, in contrast to the inherited naive, semi-stable and stage semantics, the cl-semantics correspond to the respective SETAF semantics. Finally, we investigate the expressiveness of the considered semantics in terms of their signatures.

In this paper, we aim to study how the performance of modern answer set programming (ASP) solvers is influenced by the treewidth of the input program and to investigate the consequences of this relationship. We first perform an experimental evaluation that shows that the solving performance is heavily influenced by treewidth, given ground input programs that are otherwise uniform, both in size and construction. This observation leads to an important question for ASP, namely, how to design encodings such that the treewidth of the resulting ground program remains small. To this end, we study two classes of disjunctive programs, namely guarded and connection-guarded programs. In order to investigate these classes, we formalize the grounding process using MSO transductions. Our main results show that both classes guarantee that the treewidth of the program after grounding only depends on the treewidth (and the maximum degree, in case of connection-guarded programs) of the input instance. In terms of parameterized complexity, our findings yield corresponding FPT results for answer-set existence for bounded treewidth (and also degree, for connection-guarded programs) of the input instance. We further show that bounding treewidth alone leads to NP-hardness in the data complexity for connection-guarded programs, which indicates that the two classes are fundamentally different. Finally, we show that for both classes, the data complexity remains as hard as in the general case of ASP.

Abstract The notion of secure sets is a rather new concept in the area of graph theory. Applied to social network analysis, the goal is to identify groups of entities that can repel any attack or influence from the outside. In this article, we tackle this problem by utilizing Answer Set Programming (ASP). It is known that verifying whether a set is secure in a graph is already co-NP-hard. Therefore, the problem of enumerating all secure sets is challenging for ASP and its systems. In particular, encodings for this problem seem to require disjunction and also recursive aggregates. Here, we provide such encodings and analyse their performance using the Clingo system. Furthermore, we study several problem variants, including multiple secure or insecure sets, and weighted graphs.

Abstract Argumentation frameworks with collective attacks are a prominent extension of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks, where an attack can be drawn from a set of arguments to another argument. These frameworks are often abbreviated as SETAFs. Although SETAFs have received increasing interest recently, a thorough study on the actual behaviour of collective attacks has not been carried out yet. In particular, the richer attack structure SETAFs provide can lead to different forms of redundant attacks, i.e. attacks that are subsumed by attacks involving less arguments. Also the notion of strong equivalence, which is fundamental in nonmonotonic formalisms to characterize equivalent replacements, has not been investigated for SETAFs so far. In this paper, we first provide a classification of different types of collective attacks and analyse for which semantics they can be proven redundant. We do so for eleven well-established abstract argumentation semantics. We then study how strong equivalence between SETAFs can be decided with respect to the considered semantics and also consider variants of strong equivalence. Our results show that removing redundant attacks in a suitable way provides direct means to characterize strong equivalence by syntactical equivalence of so-called kernels, thus generalizing well-known results on strong equivalence between Dung AFs.

Abstract Epistemic logic programs (ELPs) are an extension of answer set programming (ASP) with epistemic operators that allow for a form of meta-reasoning, that is, reasoning over multiple possible worlds. Existing ELP solving approaches generally rely on making multiple calls to an ASP solver in order to evaluate the ELP. However, in this paper, we show that there also exists a direct translation from ELPs into non-ground ASP with bounded arity. The resulting ASP program can thus be solved in a single shot. We then implement this encoding method, using recently proposed techniques to handle large, non-ground ASP rules, into the prototype ELP solving system “selp,” which we present in this paper. This solver exhibits competitive performance on a set of ELP benchmark instances.

Abstract Powerful formalisms for abstract argumentation have been proposed, among them abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) that allow for a succinct and flexible specification of the relationship between arguments and the GRAPPA framework which allows argumentation scenarios to be represented as arbitrary edge-labeled graphs. The complexity of ADFs and GRAPPA is located beyond NP and ranges up to the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. The combined complexity of Answer Set Programming (ASP) exactly matches this complexity when programs are restricted to predicates of bounded arity. In this paper, we exploit this coincidence and present novel efficient translations from ADFs and GRAPPA to ASP. More specifically, we provide reductions for the five main ADF semantics of admissible, complete, preferred, grounded, and stable interpretations, and exemplify how these reductions need to be adapted for GRAPPA for the admissible, complete, and preferred semantics.

Modular programming facilitates the creation and reuse of large software, and has recently gathered considerable interest in the context of Answer Set Programming (ASP). In this setting, forgetting, or the elimination of middle variables no longer deemed relevant, is of importance as it allows one to, e.g., simplify a program, make it more declarative, or even hide some of its parts without affecting the consequences for those parts that are relevant. While forgetting in the context of ASP has been extensively studied, its known limitations make it unsuitable to be used in Modular ASP. In this paper, we present a novel class of forgetting operators and show that such operators can always be successfully applied in Modular ASP to forget all kinds of atoms – input, output and hidden – overcoming the impossibility results that exist for general ASP. Additionally, we investigate conditions under which this class of operators preserves the module theorem in Modular ASP, thus ensuring that answer sets of modules can still be composed, and how the module theorem can always be preserved if we further allow the reconfiguration of modules.

Epistemic Logic Programs (ELPs), that is, Answer Set Programming (ASP) extended with epistemic operators, have received renewed interest in recent years, which led to a flurry of new research, as well as efficient solvers. An important question is under which conditions a sub-program can be replaced by another one without changing the meaning, in any context. This problem is known as strong equivalence, and is well-studied for ASP. For ELPs, this question has been approached by embedding them into epistemic extensions of equilibrium logics. In this paper, we consider a simpler, more direct characterization that is directly applicable to the language used in state-of-the-art ELP solvers. This also allows us to give tight complexity bounds, showing that strong equivalence for ELPs remains coNP-complete, as for ASP. We further use our results to provide syntactic characterizations for tautological rules and rule subsumption for ELPs.

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.

Classical axiomatizations of belief revision include a postulate stating that if new information is consistent with initial beliefs, then revision amounts to simply adding the new information to the original knowledge base. This postulate assumes a conservative attitude towards initial beliefs, in the sense that an agent faced with the need to revise them will seek to preserve initial beliefs as much as possible. In this work we look at operators that can assume different attitudes towards original beliefs. We provide axiomatizations of these operators by varying the aforementioned postulate and obtain representation results that characterize the new types of operators using preorders on possible worlds. We also present concrete examples for each new type of operator, adapting notions from decision theory.

In recent years various approaches for quantified Boolean formula (QBF) solving have been developed, including methods based on expansion, skolemization and search. Here, we present a novel expansion-based solving technique that is motivated by concepts from the area of parameterized complexity. Ou r approach relies on dynamic programming over the tree decomposition of QBFs in prenex conjunctive normal form (PCNF). Hereby, binary decision diagrams (BDDs) are used for compactly storing partial solutions. Towards efficiency in practice, we integrate dependency schemes and develop dedicated heuristic strategies. Our experimental evaluation reveals that our implementation is competitive to state-of-the-art solvers on instances with one quantifier alternation. Furthermore, it performs particularly well on instances up to a treewidth of approximately 80, even for more quantifier alternations. Results indicate that our approach is orthogonal to existing techniques, with a large number of uniquely solved instances.

Lifting a preference order on elements of some universe to a preference order on subsets of this universe is often guided by postulated properties the lifted order should have. Well-known impossibility results pose severe limits on when such liftings exist if all non-empty subsets of the universe are to be ordered. The extent to which these negative results carry over to other families of sets is not known. In this paper, we consider families of sets that induce connected subgraphs in graphs. For such families, common in applications, we study whether lifted orders satisfying the well-studied axioms of dominance and (strict) independence exist for every or, in another setting, for some underlying order on elements (strong and weak orderability). We characterize families that are strongly and weakly orderable under dominance and strict independence, and obtain a tight bound on the class of families that are strongly orderable under dominance and independence.

Abstract Epistemic Logic Programs (ELPs) extend Answer Set Programming (ASP) with epistemic negation and have received renewed interest in recent years. This led to the development of new research and efficient solving systems for ELPs. In practice, ELPs are often written in a modular way, where each module interacts with other modules by accepting sets of facts as input, and passing on sets of facts as output. An interesting question then presents itself: under which conditions can such a module be replaced by another one without changing the outcome, for any set of input facts? This problem is known as uniform equivalence, and has been studied extensively for ASP. For ELPs, however, such an investigation is, as of yet, missing. In this paper, we therefore propose a characterization of uniform equivalence that can be directly applied to the language of state-of-the-art ELP solvers. We also investigate the computational complexity of deciding uniform equivalence for two ELPs, and show that it is on the third level of the polynomial hierarchy.

Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs) generalize Dung's argumentation frameworks allowing various relationships among arguments to be expressed in a systematic way. We further generalize ADFs so as to accommodate arbitrary acceptance degrees for the arguments. This makes ADFs applicable in domains where both the initial status of arguments and their relationship are only insufficiently specified by Boolean functions. We define all standard ADF semantics for the weighted case, including grounded, preferred and stable semantics. We illustrate our approach using acceptance degrees from the unit interval and show how other valuation structures can be integrated. In each case it is sufficient to specify how the generalized acceptance conditions are represented by formulas, and to specify the information ordering underlying the characteristic ADF operator. We also present complexity results for problems related to weighted ADFs.

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are generalizations of Dung argumentation frameworks where arbitrary relationships among arguments can be formalized. This additional expressibility comes with the price of higher computational complexity, thus an understanding of potentially easier subclasses is essential. Compared to Dung argumentation frameworks, where several subclasses such as acyclic and symmetric frameworks are well understood, there has been no indepth analysis for ADFs in such direction yet (with the notable exception of bipolar ADFs). In this work, we introduce certain subclasses of ADFs and investigate their properties. In particular, we show that for acyclic ADFs, the different semantics coincide. On the other hand, we show that the concept of symmetry is less powerful for ADFs and further restrictions are required to achieve results that are similar to the known ones for Dung's frameworks. We also provide experiments to analyse the performance of solvers when applied to particular subclasses of ADFs.

In this paper, we consider SETAFs due to Nielsen and Parsons, an extension of Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks that allow for collective attacks. We first provide a comprehensive analysis of the expressiveness of SETAFs under conflict-free, naive, stable, complete, admissible and preferred semantics. Our analysis shows that SETAFs are strictly more expressive than Dung AFs. Towards a uniform characterization of SETAFs and Dung AFs we provide general results on expressiveness which take the maximum degree of the collective attacks into account. Our results show that, for each k>0, SETAFs that allow for collective attacks of k+1 arguments are more expressive than SETAFs that only allow for collective attacks of at most k arguments.

We propose a novel solver that efficiently finds almost the exact number of solutions of a Boolean formula (#Sat) and the weighted model count of a weighted Boolean formula (WMC) if the treewidth of the given formula is sufficiently small. The basis of our approach are dynamic programming algorithms on tree decompositions, which we engineered towards efficient parallel execution on the GPU. We provide thorough experiments and compare the runtime of our system with state-of-the-art #Sat and WMC solvers. Our results are encouraging in the sense that also complex reasoning problems can be tackled by parameterized algorithms executed on the GPU if instances have treewidth at most 30, which is the case for more than half of counting and weighted counting benchmark instances.

Epistemic Logic Programs (ELPs) are an extension of Answer Set Programming (ASP) with epistemic operators that allow for a form of meta-reasoning, that is, reasoning over multiple possible worlds. Existing ELP solving approaches generally rely on making multiple calls to an ASP solver in order to evaluate the ELP. However, in this paper, we show that there also exists a direct translation from ELPs into non-ground ASP with bounded arity. The resulting ASP program can thus be solved in a single shot. We then implement this encoding method, using recently proposed techniques to handle large, non-ground ASP rules, into a prototype ELP solving system. This solver exhibits competitive performance on a set of ELP benchmark instances.

In line with recent work on belief change in fragments of propositional logic, we study belief update in the Horn fragment. We start from the standard KM postulates used to axiomatize belief update operators; these postulates lend themselves to semantic characterizations in terms of partial (resp. total) preorders on possible worlds. Since the Horn fragment is not closed under disjunction, the standard postulates have to be adapted for the Horn fragment. Moreover, a restriction on the preorders (i.e., Horn compliance) and additional postulates are needed to obtain sensible characterizations for the Horn fragment, and this leads to our main contribution: a representation result which shows that the class of update operators captured by Horn compliant partial (resp. total) preorders over possible worlds is precisely that given by the adapted and augmented Horn update postulates. With these results at hand, we provide concrete Horn update operators and are able to shed light on Horn revision operators based on partial preorders.

We study a type of change on knowledge bases inspired by the dynamics of formal argumentation systems, where the goal is to enforce acceptance of certain arguments. We put forward that enforcing acceptance of arguments can be viewed as a member of the wider family of belief change operations, and that an axiomatic treatment of it is therefore desirable. In our case, laying down axioms enables a precise account of the close connection between enforcing arguments and belief revision. Our analysis of enforcing arguments proceeds by (i) axiomatizing it as an operation in propositional logic and providing a representation result in terms of rankings on sets of interpretations, (ii) showing that it stands in close relationship to belief revision, and (iii) using it as a gateway towards a principled treatment of enforcement in abstract argumentation.

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) constitute one of the most powerful formalisms in abstract argumentation. Their high computational complexity poses, however, certain challenges when designing efficient systems. In this paper, we tackle this issue by (i) analyzing the complexity of ADFs under structural restrictions, (ii) presenting novel algorithms which make use of these insights, and (iii) empirically evaluating a resulting implementation which relies on calls to SAT solvers.

Lifting a preference order on elements of some universe to a preference order on subsets of this universe is often guided by postulated properties the lifted order should have. Well-known impossibility results pose severe limits on when such liftings exist if all non-empty subsets of the universe are to be ordered. The extent to which these negative results carry over to other families of sets is not known. In this paper, we consider families of sets that induce connected subgraphs in graphs. For such families, common in applications, we study whether lifted orders satisfying the well-studied axioms of dominance and (strict) independence exist for every or, in another setting, only for some underlying order on elements (strong and weak orderability). We characterize families that are strongly and weakly orderable under dominance and strict independence, and obtain a tight bound on the class of families that are strongly orderable under dominance and independence.

In artificial intelligence, a key question concerns how an agent may rationally revise its beliefs in light of new information. The standard (AGM) approach to belief revision assumes that the underlying logic contains classical propositional logic. This is a significant limitation, since many representation schemes in AI don’t subsume propositional logic. In this article, we consider the question of what the minimal requirements are on a logic, such that the AGM approach to revision may be formulated. We show that AGM-style revision can be obtained even when extremely little is assumed of the underlying language and its semantics; in fact, one requires little more than a language with sentences that are satisfied at models, or possible worlds. The classical AGM postulates are expressed in this framework and a representation result is established between the postulate set and certain preorders on possible worlds. To obtain the representation result, we add a new postulate to the AGM postulates, and we add a constraint to preorders on worlds. Crucially, both of these additions are redundant in the original AGM framework, and so we extend , rather than modify , the AGM approach. As well, iterated revision is addressed and the Darwiche/Pearl postulates are shown to be compatible with our approach. Various examples are given to illustrate the approach, including Horn clause revision, revision in extended logic programs, and belief revision in a very basic logic called literal revision .

Many reasoning problems are based on the problem of satisfiability (SAT). While SAT itself becomes easy when restricting the structure of the formulas in a certain way, the situation is more opaque for more involved decision problems. We consider here the CardMinSat problem which asks, given a propositional formula $\phi$ and an atom $x$, whether $x$ is true in some cardinality-minimal model of $\phi$. This problem is easy for the Horn fragment, but, as we will show in this paper, remains $\Theta_2$-complete (and thus $\mathrm{NP}$-hard) for the Krom fragment (which is given by formulas in CNF where clauses have at most two literals). We will make use of this fact to study the complexity of reasoning tasks in belief revision and logic-based abduction and show that, while in some cases the restriction to Krom formulas leads to a decrease of complexity, in others it does not. We thus also consider the CardMinSat problem with respect to additional restrictions to Krom formulas towards a better understanding of the tractability frontier of such problems.

The fourteenth International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA XIV) was held in Coruña, Spain, 16–18 September 2013. The final programme included 23 papers and 30 participants attended the workshop. This special issue contains six papers from the workshop that discuss a variety of issues central to the use of logic in reasoning about multi-agent systems. The first paper in the collection, ‘The Equivalence Zoo for Dung-style Semantics’ by Baumann and Brewka, presents an extensive study of seven equivalence notions (standard, normal, strong, weak, and local expansion and minimal change equivalence) under major semantics of Dung's argumentation framework (stable, preferred, admissible and complete semantics). It shows that minimal change equivalence is a reasonable notion of equivalence between argumentation frameworks. The paper also investigates the aforementioned relationship with respect to the two restricted classes of argumentation frameworks that have the same arguments and/or are self-loop-free. The second paper, ‘Two-stage Agent Program Verification’ by Dennis, Fisher and Webster, proposes a novel method for verification of agent programs that are written in a Belief–Desire–Intention (BDI) programming language using program model-checkers. The paper extends the Agent Java Pathfinder (AJPF) agent program model-checker to generate models that could be used by other model-checkers. The key idea behind the approach lies in that generated models could be used for several purposes (e.g. proving different properties of a program). The paper demonstrates the new technique by describing the export of the AJPF program models to both the SPIN and P rism model-checkers.

Powerful formalisms for abstract argumentation have been proposed. Their complexity is often located beyond NP and ranges up to the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. The combined complexity of Answer-Set Programming (ASP) exactly matches this complexity when programs are restricted to predicates of bounded arity. In this paper, we exploit this coincidence and present novel efficient translations from abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) and GRAPPA to ASP.We also empirically compare our approach to other systems for ADF reasoning and report promising results.

We introduce a parametrized equivalence notion for abstract argumentation that subsumes standard and strong equivalence as corner cases. Under this notion, two argumentation frameworks are equivalent if they deliver the same extensions under any addition of arguments and attacks that do not affect a given set of core arguments. As we will see, this notion of equivalence nicely captures the concept of local simplifications. We provide exact characterizations and complexity results for deciding our new notion of equivalence.

In this paper, we aim to study how the performance of modern answer set programming (ASP) solvers is influenced by the treewidth of the input program and to investigate the consequences of this relationship. We first perform an experimental evaluation that shows that the solving performance is heavily influenced by the treewidth, given ground input programs that are otherwise uniform, both in size and construction. This observation leads to an important question for ASP, namely, how to design encodings such that the treewidth of the resulting ground program remains small. To this end, we define the class of connection-guarded programs, which guarantees that the treewidth of the program after grounding only depends on the treewidth (and the degree) of the input instance. In order to obtain this result, we formalize the grounding process using MSO transductions.

Several computational problems of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) such as skeptical and credulous reasoning, existence of a non-empty extension, verification, etc. have been thoroughly analyzed for various semantics. In contrast, the enumeration problem of AFs (i.e., the problem of computing all extensions according to some semantics) has been left unexplored so far. The goal of this paper is to fill this gap. We thus investigate the enumeration complexity of AFs for a large collection of semantics and, in addition, consider the most common structural restrictions on AFs.

Dynamic Programming (DP) over tree decompositions is a well-established method to solve problems - that are in general NP-hard - efficiently for instances of small treewidth. Experience shows that (i) heuristically computing a tree decomposition has negligible runtime compared to the DP step; and (ii) DP algorithms exhibit a high variance in runtime when using different tree decompositions; in fact, given an instance of the problem at hand, even decompositions of the same width might yield extremely diverging runtimes. We thus propose here a novel and general method that is based on selection of the best decomposition from an available pool of heuristically generated ones. For this purpose, we require machine learning techniques that provide automated selection based on features of the decomposition rather than on the actual problem instance. Thus, one main contribution of this work is to propose novel features for tree decompositions. Moreover, we report on extensive experiments in different problem domains which show a significant speedup when choosing the tree decomposition according to this concept over simply using an arbitrary one of the same width.

Many computationally hard problems become tractable if the graph structure underlying the problem instance exhibits small treewidth. A recent approach to put this idea into practice is based on a declarative interface to Answer Set Programming that allows us to specify dynamic programming over tree decompositions in this language, delegating the computation to dedicated solvers. In this article, we prove that this method can be applied to any problem whose fixed-parameter tractability follows from Courcelle's Theorem.

Belief merging is a central operation within the field of belief change and addresses the problem of combining multiple, possibly mutually inconsistent knowledge bases into a single, consistent one. A current research trend in belief change is concerned with representation theorems tailored to fragments of logic, in particular Horn logic. Hereby, the goal is to guarantee that the result of the change operations stays within the fragment under consideration. While several such results have been obtained for Horn revision and Horn contraction, merging of Horn theories has been neglected so far. In this article, we provide a novel representation theorem for Horn merging by strengthening the standard merging postulates. Moreover, we present concrete Horn merging operators satisfying all postulates.

Abstract Among the myriad of desirable properties discussed in the context of forgetting in Answer Set Programming,strong persistencenaturally captures its essence. Recently, it has been shown that it is not always possible to forget a set of atoms from a program while obeying this property, and a precise criterion regarding what can be forgotten has been presented, accompanied by a class of forgetting operators that return the correct result when forgetting is possible. However, it is an open question what to do when we have to forget a set of atoms, but cannot without violating this property. In this paper, we address this issue and investigate three natural alternatives to forget when forgetting without violating strong persistence is not possible, which turn out to correspond to the different possible relaxations of the characterization of strong persistence. Additionally, we discuss their preferable usage, shed light on the relation between forgetting and notions of relativized equivalence established earlier in the context of Answer Set Programming, and present a detailed study on their computational complexity.

Dung's abstract argumentation theory is a widely used formalism to model conflicting information and to draw conclusions in such situations. Hereby, the knowledge is represented by argumentation frameworks (AFs) and the reasoning is done via semantics extracting acceptable sets. All reasonable semantics are based on the notion of conflict-freeness which means that arguments are only jointly acceptable when they are not linked within the AF. In this paper, we study the question which information on top of conflict-free sets is needed to compute extensions of a semantics at hand. We introduce a hierarchy of verification classes specifying the required amount of information and show that well-known semantics are exactly verifiable through a certain such class. This also gives a means to study semantics lying between known semantics, thus contributing to a more abstract understanding of the different features argumentation semantics offer.

Many computational problems in the area of abstract argumentation are intractable. For some semantics like preferred and semi-stable, important decision problems can even be hard for classes of the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. One approach to deal with this inherent difficulty is to exploit structure of argumentation frameworks. In particular, algorithms that run in linear time for argumentation frameworks of bounded treewidth have been proposed for several semantics. In this paper, we contribute to this line of research and propose a novel algorithm for the semi-stable semantics. We also present an implementation of the algorithm and report on some experimental results.

We present a new system for specifying and evaluating frameworks in the recently proposed argumentation formalism of GRAPPA.

Disjunctive Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a powerful declarative programming paradigm whose main decision problems are located on the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. Identifying tractable fragments and developing efficient algorithms for such fragments are thus important objectives in order to complement the sophisticated ASP systems available to date. Hard problems can become tractable if some problem parameter is bounded by a fixed constant; such problems are then called fixed-parameter tractable (FPT). While several FPT results for ASP exist, parameters that relate to directed or signed graphs representing the program at hand have been neglected so far. In this paper, we first give some negative observations showing that directed width measures on the dependency graph of a program do not lead to FPT results. We then consider the graph parameter of signed clique-width and present a novel dynamic programming algorithm that is FPT w.r.t. this parameter. Clique-width is more general than the well-known treewidth, and, to the best of our knowledge, ours is the first FPT algorithm for bounded clique-width for reasoning problems beyond SAT.

In this paper we introduce a new approach for revising and merging consistent Horn formulae under minimal model semantics. Our approach is translation-based in the following sense: we generate a propositional encoding capturing both the syntax of the original Horn formulae (the clauses which appear or not in them) and their semantics (their minimal models). We can then use any classical revision or merging operator to perform belief change on the encoding. The resulting propositional theory is then translated back into a Horn formula. We identify some specific operators which guarantee a particular kind of minimal change. A unique feature of our approach is that it allows us to control whether minimality of change primarily relates to the syntax or to the minimal model semantics of the Horn formula. We give an axiomatic characterization of minimal change on the minimal model for this new setting, and we show that some specific translation-based revision and merging operators satisfy our postulates.

Merging is one of the central operations in the field of belief change, which is concerned with aggregating the opinions of individuals. Representation theorems provide a family of merging operators satisfying some natural desiderata for merging beliefs. However, little is known about how these operators can be further distinguished. In the field of social choice, on the other hand, numerous properties have been proposed in order to classify voting rules. In this work, we adapt these properties to the context of merging and investigate how they relate to the standard postulates. Our results thus lead to a more fine-grained classification of merging operators and shed light on the question of which particular merging operator is best suited in a concrete application domain.

State-of-the-art answer set programming (ASP) solvers rely on a program called a grounder to convert non-ground programs containing variables into variable-free, propositional programs. The size of this grounding depends heavily on the size of the non-ground rules, and thus, reducing the size of such rules is a promising approach to improve solving performance. To this end, in this paper we announce lpopt, a tool that decomposes large logic programming rules into smaller rules that are easier to handle for current solvers. The tool is specifically tailored to handle the standard syntax of the ASP language (ASP-Core) and makes it easier for users to write efficient and intuitive ASP programs, which would otherwise often require significant hand-tuning by expert ASP engineers. It is based on an idea proposed by Morak and Woltran (2012) that we extend significantly in order to handle the full ASP syntax, including complex constructs like aggregates, weak constraints, and arithmetic expressions. We present the algorithm, the theoretical foundations on how to treat these constructs, as well as an experimental evaluation showing the viability of our approach.

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a powerful declarative programming paradigm that has been successfully applied to many different domains. Recently, ASP has also proved successful for hard optimization problems like course timetabling and travel allotment. In this paper, we approach another important task, namely, the shift design problem, aiming at an alignment of a minimum number of shifts in order to meet required numbers of employees (which typically vary for different time periods) in such a way that over- and understaffing is minimized. We provide an ASP encoding of the shift design problem, which, to the best of our knowledge, has not been addressed by ASP yet. Our experimental results demonstrate that ASP is capable of improving the best known solutions to some benchmark problems. Other instances remain challenging and make the shift design problem an interesting benchmark for ASP-based optimization methods.

Many problems from the area of AI have been shown tractable for bounded treewidth. In order to put such results into practice, quite involved dynamic programming (DP) algorithms on tree decompositions have to be designed and implemented. These algorithms typically show recurring patterns that call for tasks like subset minimization. In this paper we present a novel approach to obtain such DP algorithms from simpler principles, where the DP formalization of subset minimization is performed automatically. We first give a theoretical account of our novel method, and then present D-FLAT^2, a system that allows one to specify the core DP algorithm via answer set programming (ASP). We illustrate the approach at work by providing several DP algorithms that are more space-efficient than existing solutions, while featuring improved readability, reuse and therefore maintainability of ASP code. Experiments show that our approach also yields a significant improvement in runtime performance.

A special case of loops in argumentation are self-attacking arguments. While their role with respect to the ontological nature of argumentation is controversially discussed, their presence (or absence) in the abstract setting of Dung-style argumentation frameworks seems to be less crucial for semantics or fundamental properties. There are, however, a few exceptions where self-attacking arguments have essential influence. One such exception concerns characterizations of (strong) equivalence notions between argumentation frameworks. Different notions of equivalence have recently been proposed in the literature and several characterization results for different semantics have been obtained. In this article, we will survey the current state of this research direction with a particular emphasis on the effect of (dis)allowing self-conflicting arguments. We also provide some novel results for stage, eager and naive semantics in order to present a full classification of ten prominent semantics and four equivalence notions.

Recently, belief change within the framework of fragments of propositional logic has gained increasing attention. Previous research focused on belief contraction and belief revision on the Horn fragment. However, the problem of belief merging within fragments of propositional logic has been mostly neglected so far. We present a general approach to defining new merging operators derived from existing ones such that the result of merging remains in the fragment under consideration. Our approach is not limited to the case of Horn fragment; it is applicable to any fragment of propositional logic characterized by a closure property on the sets of models of its formulæ. We study the logical properties of the proposed operators regarding satisfaction of merging postulates, considering, in particular, distance-based merging operators for Horn and Krom fragments.

Abstract Answer set programming (ASP) is a well-established logic programming language that offers an intuitive, declarative syntax for problem solving. In its traditional application, a fixed ASP program for a given problem is designed and the actual instance of the problem is fed into the program as a set of facts. This approach typically results in programs with comparably short and simple rules. However, as is known from complexity analysis, such an approach limits the expressive power of ASP; in fact, an entire NP-check can be encoded into a single large rule body of bounded arity that performs both a guess and a check within the same rule. Here, we propose a novel paradigm for encoding hard problems in ASP by making explicit use of large rules which depend on the actual instance of the problem. We illustrate how this new encoding paradigm can be used, providing examples of problems from the first, second, and even third level of the polynomial hierarchy. As state-of-the-art solvers are tuned towards short rules, rule decomposition is a key technique in the practical realization of our approach. We also provide some preliminary benchmarks which indicate that giving up the convenient way of specifying a fixed program can lead to a significant speed-up.

A secure set S in a graph is defined as a set of vertices such that for any $$X\subseteq S$$ the majority of vertices in the neighborhood of X belongs to S. It is known that deciding whether a set S is secure in a graph is $$\text {co-}\hbox {NP}$$ -complete. However, it is still open how this result contributes to the actual complexity of deciding whether, for a given graph G and integer k, a non-empty secure set for G of size at most k exists. While membership in the class $$\Sigma ^{\mathrm{P}}_{2}$$ is rather easy to see for this existence problem, showing $$\Sigma ^{\mathrm{P}}_{2}$$ -hardness is quite involved. In this paper, we provide such a hardness result, hence classifying the secure set existence problem as $$\Sigma ^{\mathrm{P}}_{2}$$ -complete. We do so by first showing hardness for a variantof the problem, which we then reduce step-by-step to secure set existence. In total, we obtain eight new completeness results for different variants of the secure set existence problem.

Within the last decade, abstract argumentation has emerged as a central field in Artificial Intelligence. Besides providing a core formalism for many advanced argumentation systems, abstract argumentation has also served to capture several non-monotonic logics and other AI related principles. Although the idea of abstract argumentation is appealingly simple, several reasoning problems in this formalism exhibit high computational complexity. This calls for advanced techniques when it comes to implementation issues, a challenge which has been recently faced from different angles. In this survey, we give an overview on different methods for solving reasoning problems in abstract argumentation and compare their particular features. Moreover, we highlight available state-of-the-art systems for abstract argumentation, which put these methods to practice.

Logic-based abduction is an important reasoning method with many applications in Artificial Intelligence including diagnosis, planning, and configuration. The goal of an abduction problem is to find a ‘solution’, i.e., an explanation for some observed symptoms. Usually, many solutions exist, and one is often interested in minimal ones only. Previous definitions of ‘solutions’ to an abduction problem tacitly made an open-world assumption. However, as far as minimality is concerned, this assumption may not always lead to the desired behaviour. To overcome this problem, we propose a new definition of solutions based on a closed-world approach. Moreover, we also introduce a new variant of minimality where only a part of the hypotheses is subject to minimization. A thorough complexity analysis reveals the close relationship between these two new notions as well as the differences compared with previous notions of solutions.

Abstract Disjunctive Answer Set Programming is a powerful declarative programming paradigm with complexity beyond NP. Identifying classes of programs for which the consistency problem is in NP is of interest from the theoretical standpoint and can potentially lead to improvements in the design of answer set programming solvers. One of such classes consists of dual-normal programs, where the number of positive body atoms in proper rules is at most one. Unlike other classes of programs, dual-normal programs have received little attention so far. In this paper we study this class. We relate dual-normal programs to propositional theories and to normal programs by presenting several inter-translations. With the translation from dual-normal to normal programs at hand, we introduce the novel class of body-cycle free programs, which are in many respects dual to head-cycle free programs. We establish the expressive power of dual-normal programs in terms of SE- and UE-models, and compare them to normal programs. We also discuss the complexity of deciding whether dual-normal programs are strongly and uniformly equivalent.

Abstract The design of efficient solutions for abstract argumentation problems is a crucial step towards advanced argumentation systems. One of the most prominent approaches in the literature is to use Answer-Set Programming (ASP) for this endeavor. In this paper, we present new encodings for three prominent argumentation semantics using the concept of conditional literals in disjunctions as provided by the ASP-system clingo. Our new encodings are not only more succinct than previous versions, but also outperform them on standard benchmarks.

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) constitute a recent and powerful generalization of Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs), where the relationship between the arguments is specified via Boolean formulas. Recent results have shown that this enhancement comes with the price of higher complexity compared to AFs. In fact, acceptance problems in the world of ADFs can be hard even for the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. In order to implement reasoning problems on ADFs, systems for quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs) thus are suitable engines to be employed. In this paper we present QBF encodings on ADF problems generalizing recent work on QBFs for AF labellings. Our encodings not only provide a uniform and modular way of translating reasoning in ADFs to QBFs, but also build the basis for a novel system. We present a prototype implementation for the admissible and preferred semantics and evaluate its performance in comparison with another state-of-the-art tool for ADFs.

The resolution-based grounded semantics constitutes one of the most interesting approaches for the evaluation of abstract argumentation frameworks. This particular semantics satisfies a large number of desired properties, among them all properties proposed by Baroni and Giacomin. In recent years, the analysis of argumentation semantics has been extended by further topics, among them characterizations for equivalence notions, intertranslatability issues, and expressibility in terms of signatures (all possible sets of extensions a semantics is capable to express). In this line of research, resolution-based grounded semantics has been neglected so far. We close this gap here, compare the expressibility of resolution-based grounded semantics with other prominent semantics, provide a characterization for strong equivalence and complement existing complexity results.

Abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) are one of the most studied formalisms in AI. In this work, we introduce a certain subclass of AFs which we call compact. Given an extension-based semantics, the corresponding compact AFs are characterized by the feature that each argument of the AF occurs in at least one extension. This not only guarantees a certain notion of fairness; compact AFs are thus also minimal in the sense that no argument can be removed without changing the outcome. We address the following questions in the paper: (1) How are the classes of compact AFs related for different semantics? (2) Under which circumstances can AFs be transformed into equivalent compact ones? (3) Finally, we show that compact AFs are indeed a non-trivial subclass, since the verification problem remains coNP-hard for certain semantics.

Graphical models are widely used in argumentation to visualize relationships among propositions or arguments. The intuitive meaning of the links in the graphs is typically expressed using labels of various kinds. In this paper we introduce a general semantical framework for assigning a precise meaning to labelled argument graphs which makes them suitable for automatic evaluation. Our approach rests on the notion of explicit acceptance conditions, as first studied in Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs). The acceptance conditions used here are functions from multisets of labels to truth values. We define various Dung style semantics for argument graphs. We also introduce a pattern language for specifying acceptance functions. Moreover, we show how argument graphs can be compiled to ADFs, thus providing an automatic evaluation tool via existing ADF implementations. Finally, we also discuss complexity issues.

Abstract Adapting techniques from database theory in order to optimize Answer Set Programming (ASP) systems, and in particular the grounding components of ASP systems, is an important topic in ASP. In recent years, the Magic Set method has received some interest in this setting, and a variant of it, called Dynamic Magic Set, has been proposed for ASP. However, this technique has a caveat, because it is not correct (in the sense of being query-equivalent) for all ASP programs. In a recent work, a large fragment of ASP programs, referred to assuper-coherent programs, has been identified, for which Dynamic Magic Set is correct. The fragment contains all programs which possess at least one answer set, no matter which set of facts is added to them. Two open question remained: How complex is it to determine whether a given program is super-coherent? Does the restriction to super-coherent programs limit the problems that can be solved? Especially the first question turned out to be quite difficult to answer precisely. In this paper, we formally prove that deciding whether a propositional program is super-coherent is Π3P-complete in the disjunctive case, while it is Π2P-complete for normal programs. The hardness proofs are the difficult part in this endeavor: We proceed by characterizing the reductions by the models and reduct models which the ASP programs should have, and then provide instantiations that meet the given specifications. Concerning the second question, we show that all relevant ASP reasoning tasks can be transformed into tasks over super-coherent programs, although this transformation is more of theoretical than practical interest.

Abstract Cardinality constraints or, more generally, weight constraints are well recognized as an important extension of answer-set programming. Clearly, all common algorithmic tasks related to programs with cardinality or weight constraints – like checking the consistency of a program – are intractable. Many intractable problems in the area of knowledge representation and reasoning have been shown to become linear time tractable if the treewidth of the programs or formulas under consideration is bounded by some constant. The goal of this paper is to apply the notion of treewidth to programs with cardinality or weight constraints and to identify tractable fragments. It will turn out that the straightforward application of treewidth to such class of programs does not suffice to obtain tractability. However, by imposing further restrictions, tractability can be achieved.

We introduce abstract preference frameworks to study general properties common across a variety of preference formalisms. In particular, we study strong equivalence in preference formalisms and their separability. We identify abstract postulates on preference frameworks, satisfied by most of the currently studied preference formalisms, that lead to characterizations of both properties of interest.

We introduce the framework of qualitative optimization problems (or, simply, optimization problems) to represent preference theories. The formalism uses separate modules to describe the space of outcomes to be compared (the generator) and the preferences on outcomes (the selector). We consider two types of optimization problems. They differ in the way the generator, which we model by a propositional theory, is interpreted: by the standard propositional logic semantics, and by the equilibrium-model (answer-set) semantics. Under the latter interpretation of generators, optimization problems directly generalize answer-set optimization programs proposed previously. We study strong equivalence of optimization problems, which guarantees their interchangeability within any larger context. We characterize several versions of strong equivalence obtained by restricting the class of optimization problems that can be used as extensions and establish the complexity of associated reasoning tasks. Understanding strong equivalence is essential for modular representation of optimization problems and rewriting techniques to simplify them without changing their inherent properties.

Abstract argumentation frameworks nowadays provide the most popular formalization of argumentation on a conceptual level. Numerous semantics for this paradigm have been proposed, whereby the cf2 semantics has shown to solve particular problems concerned with odd-length cycles in such frameworks. Due to the complicated definition of this semantics it has somehow been neglected in the literature. In this article, we introduce an alternative characterization of the cf2 semantics which, roughly speaking, avoids the recursive computation of subframeworks. This facilitates further investigation steps, like a complete complexity analysis. Furthermore, we show how the notion of strong equivalence can be characterized in terms of the cf2 semantics. In contrast to other semantics, it turns out that for the cf2 semantics strong equivalence coincides with syntactical equivalence. We make this particular behaviour more explicit by defining a new property for argumentation semantics, called the succinctness property. If a semantics σ satisfies the succinctness property, then for every framework F, all its attacks contribute to the evaluation of at least one framework F′ containing F. We finally characterize strong equivalence also for the stage and the naive semantics. Together with known results these characterizations imply that none of the prominent semantics for abstract argumentation, except the cf2 semantics, satisfies the succinctness property.

We address the problem of belief change in (nonmonotonic) logic programming under answer set semantics. Our formal techniques are analogous to those of distance-based belief revision in propositional logic. In particular, we build upon the model theory of logic programs furnished by SE interpretations, where an SE interpretation is a model of a logic program in the same way that a classical interpretation is a model of a propositional formula. Hence we extend techniques from the area of belief revision based on distance between models to belief change in logic programs. We first consider belief revision: for logic programs P and Q , the goal is to determine a program R that corresponds to the revision of P by Q , denoted P * Q . We investigate several operators, including (logic program) expansion and two revision operators based on the distance between the SE models of logic programs. It proves to be the case that expansion is an interesting operator in its own right, unlike in classical belief revision where it is relatively uninteresting. Expansion and revision are shown to satisfy a suite of interesting properties; in particular, our revision operators satisfy all or nearly all of the AGM postulates for revision. We next consider approaches for merging a set of logic programs, P 1 , ..., P n . Again, our formal techniques are based on notions of relative distance between the SE models of the logic programs. Two approaches are examined. The first informally selects for each program P i those models of P i that vary the least from models of the other programs. The second approach informally selects those models of a program P 0 that are closest to the models of programs P 1 , ..., P n . In this case, P 0 can be thought of as a set of database integrity constraints. We examine these operators with regards to how they satisfy relevant postulate sets. Last, we present encodings for computing the revision as well as the merging of logic programs within the same logic programming framework. This gives rise to a direct implementation of our approach in terms of off-the-shelf answer set solvers. These encodings also reflect the fact that our change operators do not increase the complexity of the base formalism.

Abstract In this work, we propose Answer-Set Programming (ASP) as a tool for rapid prototyping of dynamic programming algorithms based on tree decompositions. In fact, many such algorithms have been designed, but only a few of them found their way into implementation. The main obstacle is the lack of easy-to-use systems which (i) take care of building a tree decomposition and (ii) provide an interface for declarative specifications of dynamic programming algorithms. In this paper, we present D-FLAT, a novel tool that relieves the user of having to handle all the technical details concerned with parsing, tree decomposition, the handling of data structures, etc. Instead, it is only the dynamic programming algorithm itself which has to be specified in the ASP language. D-FLAT employs an ASP solver in order to compute the local solutions in the dynamic programming algorithm. In the paper, we give a few examples illustrating the use of D-FLAT and describe the main features of the system. Moreover, we report experiments which show that ASP-based D-FLAT encodings for some problems outperform monolithic ASP encodings on instances of small treewidth.

A promising approach to tackle intractable problems is given by combining decomposition methods with dynamic programming algorithms. One such decomposition concept is tree decomposition. In this paper, we provide a new algorithm using this combined approach for solving reasoning problems in propositional answer set programming.

One criticism often advanced against abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs), is that these consider only one form of interaction between atomic arguments: specifically that an argument attacks another. Attempts to broaden the class of relationships include bipolar frameworks, where arguments support others, and abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs). The latter, allow of an argument, x, to be predicated on a given propositional function, Cx, dependent on the corresponding acceptance of its parents, i.e. those y for which 〈y, x〉 occurs. Although offering a richly expressive formalism subsuming both standard and bipolar AFs, an issue that arises with ADFs is whether this expressiveness is achieved in a manner that would be infeasible within standard AFs. Can the semantics used in ADFs be mapped to some AF semantics? How many arguments are needed in an AF to simulate an ADF? We show that (in a formally defined sense) any ADF can be simulated by an AF of similar size and that this translation can be realised by a polynomial time algorithm.

The concept of “ideal semantics” has been promoted as an alternative basis for skeptical reasoning within abstract argumentation settings. Informally, ideal acceptance not only requires an argument to be skeptically accepted in the traditional sense but further insists that the argument is in an admissible set all of whose arguments are also skeptically accepted. The original proposal was couched in terms of the so-called preferred semantics for abstract argumentation. We argue, in this paper, that the notion of “ideal acceptability” is applicable to arbitrary semantics and justify this claim by showing that standard properties of classical ideal semantics, e.g. unique status, continue to hold in any “reasonable” extension-based semantics. We categorise the relationship between the divers concepts of “ideal extension wrt semantics σ” that arise and we present a comprehensive analysis of algorithmic and complexity-theoretic issues.

Translations between different nonmonotonic formalisms always have been an important topic in the field, in particular to understand the knowledge-representation capabilities those formalisms offer. We provide such an investigation in terms of different semantics proposed for abstract argumentation frameworks, a nonmonotonic yet simple formalism which received increasing interest within the last decade. Although the properties of these different semantics are nowadays well understood, there are no explicit results about intertranslatability. We provide such translations wrt. different properties and also give a few novel complexity results which underlie some negative results.

We study methods to specify preferences among subsets of a set (auniverse). The methods we focus on are of two types. The first one assumes the universe comes with a preference relation on its elements and attempts to lift that relation to subsets of the universe. That approach has limited expressivity but results in orderings that capture interesting general preference principles. The second method consists of developing formalisms allowing the user to specify "atomic" improvements, and generating from them preferences on the powerset of the universe. We show that the particular formalism we propose is expressive enough to capture the lifted preference relations of the first approach, and generalizes propositional CP-nets. We discuss the importance of domain-independent methods for specifying preferences on sets for knowledge representation formalisms, selecting the formalism of argumentation frameworks as an illustrative example.

Most computational problems in the area of abstract argumentation are intractable, thus identifying tractable fragments and developing efficient algorithms for such fragments are important objectives towards practically efficient argumentation systems. One approach to tractability is to view abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) as directed graphs and bound certain graph parameters. In particular, Dunne showed that many problems can be solved in linear time for AFs of bounded treewidth. In this paper we consider the graph-parameter clique-width, which is more general than treewidth. An additional advantage of clique-width over treewidth is that it applies well to directed graphs and takes the orientation of edges into account. We first give theoretical tractability results for AFs of bounded clique-width and then introduce dynamic-programming algorithms for credulous and skeptical reasoning.

Abstract argumentation frameworks nowadays provide the most popular formalization of argumentation on a conceptual level. Numerous semantics for this paradigm have been proposed, whereby cf2 semantics has shown to nicely solve particular problems concernend with odd-length cycles in such frameworks. In order to compare different semantics not only on a theoretical basis, it is necessary to provide systems which implement them within a uniform platform. Answer-Set Programming (ASP) turned out to be a promising direction for this aim, since it not only allows for a concise representation of concepts inherent to argumentation semantics, but also offers sophisticated off-the-shelves solvers which can be used as core computation engines. In fact, many argumentation semantics have meanwhile been encoded within the ASP paradigm, but not all relevant semantics, among them cf2 semantics, have yet been considered. The contributions of this work are thus twofold. Due to the particular nature of cf2 semantics, we first provide an alternative characterization which, roughly speaking, avoids the recursive computation of sub-frameworks. Then, we provide the concrete ASP-encodings, which are incorporated within the ASPARTIX system, a platform which already implements a wide range of semantics for abstract argumentation.

Logic-based abduction is an important reasoning method with many applications in Artificial Intelligence including diagnosis, planning, and configuration. The goal of an abduction problem is to find a “solution”, i.e., an explanation for some observed symptoms. Usually, many solutions exist, and one is often interested in minimal ones only. Previous definitions of “solutions” to an abduction problem tacitly made an open-world assumption. However, as far as minimality is concerned, this assumption may not always lead to the desired behavior. To overcome this problem, we propose a new definition of solutions based on a closed-world approach. Moreover, we also introduce a new variant of minimality where only a part of the hypotheses is subject to minimization. A thorough complexity analysis reveals the close relationship between these two new notions as well as the differences compared with previous notions of solutions.

Alternation is a common tool in complexity theory, where it has been used to prove various complexity classifications. In this work, we show that it can also be used to enhance the expressive power of the imperative part of a programming language. In particular, we present Alter-Java -- an extension of Java by language constructs to express alternation, i.e., a sequence of "there exists" and "for all" statements. Moreover, we show that many practical problems have a very natural and succinct description in terms of alternation. In order to guarantee an efficient execution of such programs, we have introduced several optimizations. We also report on experiments with our implementation of Alter-Java. The results thus obtained illustrate that our alternation framework leads to competitive running times while the code to be written is significantly shorter than without this new language feature.

Practically all programming languages allow the programmer to split a program into several modules which brings along several advantages in software development. In this paper, we are interested in the area of answer-set programming where fully declarative and nonmonotonic languages are applied. In this context, obtaining a modular structure for programs is by no means straightforward since the output of an entire program cannot in general be composed from the output of its components. To better understand the effects of disjunctive information on modularity we restrict the scope of analysis to the case of disjunctive logic programs (DLPs) subject to stable-model semantics. We define the notion of a DLP-function, where a well-defined input/output interface is provided, and establish a novel module theorem which indicates the compositionality of stable-model semantics for DLP-functions. The module theorem extends the well-known splitting-set theorem and enables the decomposition of DLP-functions given their strongly connected components based on positive dependencies induced by rules. In this setting, it is also possible to split shared disjunctive rules among components using a generalized shifting technique. The concept of modular equivalence is introduced for the mutual comparison of DLP-functions using a generalization of a translation-based verification method.

Abstract Equilibrium logic is an approach to non-monotonic reasoning that extends the stable-model and answer-set semantics for logic programs. In particular, it includes the general case of nested logic programs, where arbitrary Boolean combinations are permitted in heads and bodies of rules, as special kinds of theories. In this paper, we present polynomial reductions of the main reasoning tasks associated with equilibrium logic and nested logic programs into quantified propositional logic, an extension of classical propositional logic where quantifications over atomic formulas are permitted. Thus, quantified propositional logic is a fragment of second-order logic, and its formulas are usually referred to as quantified Boolean formulas (QBFs). We provide reductions not only for decision problems, but also for the central semantical concepts of equilibrium logic and nested logic programs. In particular, our encodings map a given decision problem into some QBF such that the latter is valid precisely in case the former holds. The basic tasks we deal with here are the consistency problem, brave reasoning and skeptical reasoning. Additionally, we also provide encodings for testing equivalence of theories or programs under different notions of equivalence, viz. ordinary, strong and uniform equivalence. For all considered reasoning tasks, we analyse their computational complexity and give strict complexity bounds. Hereby, our encodings yield upper bounds in a direct manner. Besides this useful feature, our approach has the following benefits: First, our encodings yield a uniform axiomatisation for a variety of problems in a common language. Second, extant solvers for QBFs can be used as back-end inference engines to realise implementations of the encoded task in a rapid prototyping manner. Third, our axiomatisations also allow us to straightforwardly relate equilibrium logic with circumscription.

Abstract A recent framework of relativized hyperequivalence of programs offers a unifying generalization of strong and uniform equivalence. It seems to be especially well suited for applications in program optimization and modular programming due to its flexibility that allows us to restrict, independently of each other, the head and body alphabets in context programs. We study relativized hyperequivalence for the three semantics of logic programs given by stable, supported, and supported minimal models. For each semantics, we identify four types of contexts, depending on whether the head and body alphabets are given directly or as thecomplementof a given set. Hyperequivalence relative to contexts where the head and body alphabets are specified directly has been studied before. In this paper, we establish the complexity of deciding relativized hyperequivalence with respect to the three other types of context programs.

Abstract Logic programming under the answer-set semantics nowadays deals with numerous different notions of program equivalence. This is due to the fact that equivalence for substitution (known as strong equivalence) and ordinary equivalence are different concepts. The former holds, given programs P and Q, iff P can be faithfully replaced by Q within any context R, while the latter holds iff P and Q provide the same output, that is, they have the same answer sets. Notions in between strong and ordinary equivalence have been introduced as theoretical tools to compare incomplete programs and are defined by either restricting the syntactic structure of the considered context programs R or by bounding the set $\A$ of atoms allowed to occur in R (relativized equivalence). For the latter approach, different $\A$ yield properly different equivalence notions, in general. For the former approach, however, it turned out that any “reasonable” syntactic restriction to R coincides with either ordinary, strong, or uniform equivalence (for uniform equivalence, the context ranges over arbitrary sets of facts, rather than program rules). In this paper, we propose a parameterization for equivalence notions which takes care of both such kinds of restrictions simultaneously by bounding, on the one hand, the atoms which are allowed to occur in the rule heads of the context and, on the other hand, the atoms which are allowed to occur in the rule bodies of the context. We introduce a general semantical characterization which includes known ones as SE-models (for strong equivalence) or UE-models (for uniform equivalence) as special cases. Moreover, we provide complexity bounds for the problem in question and sketch a possible implementation method making use of dedicated systems for checking ordinary equivalence.

In recent research on nonmonotonic logic programming, repeatedly strong equivalence of logic programs P and Q has been considered, which holds if the programs P ∪ R and Q ∪ R have the same answer sets for any other program R . This property strengthens the equivalence of P and Q with respect to answer sets (which is the particular case for R =∅), and has its applications in program optimization, verification, and modular logic programming. In this article, we consider more liberal notions of strong equivalence, in which the actual form of R may be syntactically restricted. On the one hand, we consider uniform equivalence where R is a set of facts, rather than a set of rules. This notion, which is well-known in the area of deductive databases, is particularly useful for assessing whether programs P and Q are equivalent as components of a logic program which is modularly structured. On the other hand, we consider relativized notions of equivalence where R ranges over rules over a fixed alphabet, and thus generalize our results to relativized notions of strong and uniform equivalence. For all these notions, we consider disjunctive logic programs in the propositional (ground) case as well as some restricted classes, providing semantical characterizations and analyzing the computational complexity. Our results, which naturally extend to answer set semantics for programs with strong negation, complement the results on strong equivalence of logic programs and pave the way for optimizations in answer set solvers as a tool for input-based problem solving.

In this paper, we show how an approach to belief revision and belief contraction can be axiomatized by means of quantified Boolean formulas. Specifically, we consider the approach of belief change scenarios, a general framework that has been introduced for expressing different forms of belief change. The essential idea is that for a belief change scenario (K, R, C), the set of formulas K, representing the knowledge base, is modified so that the sets of formulas R and C are respectively true in, and consistent with the result. By restricting the form of a belief change scenario, one obtains specific belief change operators including belief revision, contraction, update, and merging. For both the general approach and for specific operators, we give a quantified Boolean formula such that satisfying truth assignments to the free variables correspond to belief change extensions in the original approach. Hence, we reduce the problem of determining the results of a belief change operation to that of satisfiability. This approach has several benefits. First, it furnishes an axiomatic specification of belief change with respect to belief change scenarios. This then leads to further insight into the belief change framework. Second, this axiomatization allows us to identify strict complexity bounds for the considered reasoning tasks. Third, we have implemented these different forms of belief change by means of existing solvers for quantified Boolean formulas. As well, it appears that this approach may be straightforwardly applied to other specific approaches to belief change.