Comparison of SAT-based and ASP-based Algorithms for Inconsistency Measurement

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

Measuring Inconsistency in Declarative Process Specifications

We address the problem of measuring inconsistency in declarative process specifications, with an emphasis on linear temporal logic on fixed traces (LTLff). As we will show, existing inconsistency measures for classical logic cannot provide a meaningful assessment of inconsistency in LTL in general, as they cannot adequately handle the temporal operators. We therefore propose a novel paraconsistent semantics as a framework for inconsistency measurement. We then present two new inconsistency measures based on these semantics and show that they satisfy important desirable properties. We show how these measures can be applied to declarative process models and investigate the computational complexity of the introduced approach.

Revisiting initial sets in abstract argumentation

We revisit the notion of initial sets by Xu and Cayrol, i.e., non-empty minimal admissible sets in abstract argumentation frameworks. Initial sets are a simple concept for analysing conflicts in an abstract argumentation framework and to explain why certain arguments can be accepted. We contribute with new insights on the structure of initial sets and devise a simple non-deterministic construction principle for any admissible set, based on iterative selection of initial sets of the original framework and its induced reducts. In particular, we characterise many existing admissibility-based semantics via this construction principle, thus providing a constructive explanation on the structure of extensions. We also investigate certain problems related to initial sets with respect to their computational complexity.

Fudge: A light-weight solver for abstract argumentation based on SAT reductions

We present Fudge, an abstract argumentation solver that tightly integrates satisfiability solving technology to solve a series of abstract argumentation problems. While most of the encodings used by Fudge derive from standard translation approaches, Fudge makes use of completely novel encodings to solve the skeptical reasoning problem wrt. preferred semantics and problems wrt. ideal semantics.

Measuring Inconsistency over Sequences of Business Rule Cases

In this report, we investigate (element-based) inconsistency measures for multisets of business rule bases. Currently, related works allow to assess individual rule bases, however, as companies might encounter thousands of such instances daily, studying not only individual rule bases separately, but rather also their interrelations becomes necessary, especially in regard to determining suitable re-modelling strategies. We therefore present an approach to induce multiset-measures from arbitrary (traditional) inconsistency measures, propose new rationality postulates for a multiset use-case, and investigate the complexity of various aspects regarding multi-rule base inconsistency measurement.

Towards Ranking-based Semantics for Abstract Argumentation using Conditional Logic Semantics

We propose a novel ranking-based semantics for Dung-style argumentation frameworks with the help of conditional logics. Using an intuitive translation for an argumentation framework to generate conditionals, we can apply nonmonotonic inference systems to generate a ranking on possible worlds. With this ranking we construct a ranking for our arguments. With a small extension to this ranking-based semantics we already satisfy some desirable properties for a ranking over arguments.

Towards Inconsistency Measurement in Business Rule Bases

We investigate the application of inconsistency measures to the problem of analysing business rule bases. Due to some intricacies of the domain of business rule bases, a straightforward application is not feasible. We therefore develop some new rationality postulates for this setting as well as adapt and modify existing inconsistency measures. We further adapt the notion of inconsistency values (or culpability measures) for this setting and give a comprehensive feasibility study.

Epistemic Graphs for Representing and Reasoning with Positive and Negative Influences of Arguments

This paper introduces epistemic graphs as a generalization of the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation. In these graphs, an argument can be believed or disbelieved up to a given degree, thus providing a more fine--grained alternative to the standard Dung's approaches when it comes to determining the status of a given argument. Furthermore, the flexibility of the epistemic approach allows us to both model the rationale behind the existing semantics as well as completely deviate from them when required. Epistemic graphs can model both attack and support as well as relations that are neither support nor attack. The way other arguments influence a given argument is expressed by the epistemic constraints that can restrict the belief we have in an argument with a varying degree of specificity. The fact that we can specify the rules under which arguments should be evaluated and we can include constraints between unrelated arguments permits the framework to be more context--sensitive. It also allows for better modelling of imperfect agents, which can be important in multi--agent applications.

Proceedings of the Second Summer School on Argumentation: Computational and Linguistic Perspectives (SSA'16)

This volume contains the thesis abstracts presented at the Second Summer School on Argumentation: Computational and Linguistic Perspectives (SSA'2016) held on September 8-12 in Potsdam, Germany.

System Descriptions of the First International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA'15)

This volume contains the system description of the 18 solvers submitted to the First International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA'15) and therefore gives an overview on state-of-the-art of computational approaches to abstract argumentation problems. Further information on the results of the competition and the performance of the individual solvers can be found on at http://argumentationcompetition.org/2015/.