Parameterized Complexity of Logic-Based Argumentation in Schaefer's Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.11782v1
• Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 16:34:42 GMT
• Title: Parameterized Complexity of Logic-Based Argumentation in Schaefer's Framework
• Authors: Yasir Mahmood, Arne Meier, Johannes Schmidt
• Abstract summary: We study the propositional variants of the following three computational tasks studied in argumentation. ARG-Check is complete for the complexity class DP, and the other two problems are known to be complete for the second level of the hierarchy. Several cases are of very high intractability (paraNP and beyond)
• Score: 1.5469452301122177
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Logic-based argumentation is a well-established formalism modelling nonmonotonic reasoning. It has been playing a major role in AI for decades, now. Informally, a set of formulas is the support for a given claim if it is consistent, subset-minimal, and implies the claim. In such a case, the pair of the support and the claim together is called an argument. In this paper, we study the propositional variants of the following three computational tasks studied in argumentation: ARG (exists a support for a given claim with respect to a given set of formulas), ARG-Check (is a given set a support for a given claim), and ARG-Rel (similarly as ARG plus requiring an additionally given formula to be contained in the support). ARG-Check is complete for the complexity class DP, and the other two problems are known to be complete for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy (Parson et al., J. Log. Comput., 2003) and, accordingly, are highly intractable. Analyzing the reason for this intractability, we perform a two-dimensional classification: first, we consider all possible propositional fragments of the problem within Schaefer's framework (STOC 1978), and then study different parameterizations for each of the fragment. We identify a list of reasonable structural parameters (size of the claim, support, knowledge-base) that are connected to the aforementioned decision problems. Eventually, we thoroughly draw a fine border of parameterized intractability for each of the problems showing where the problems are fixed-parameter tractable and when this exactly stops. Surprisingly, several cases are of very high intractability (paraNP and beyond).

Related papers

• MathGAP: Out-of-Distribution Evaluation on Problems with Arbitrarily Complex Proofs [80.96119560172224]
  Large language models (LLMs) can solve arithmetic word problems with high accuracy, but little is known about how well they generalize to problems that are more complex than the ones on which they have been trained. We present a framework for evaluating LLMs on problems with arbitrarily complex arithmetic proofs, called MathGAP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T12:48:14Z)
• Rejection in Abstract Argumentation: Harder Than Acceptance? [18.299322342860513]
  We consider flexible conditions for emphrejecting an argument from an extension, which we call rejection conditions (RCs) Rejection AFs are highly expressive, giving rise to natural problems on higher levels of the hierarchy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T09:37:04Z)
• Advancing Algorithmic Approaches to Probabilistic Argumentation under the Constellation Approach [0.0]
  We develop an algorithm for the complex task of computing the probability of a set of arguments being a complete extension. An experimental evaluation shows promise of our approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-06T12:08:38Z)
• Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation [19.799266797193344]
  Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes. Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are interpretability techniques. We show that counterfactual and semifactual queries can be encoded in weak-constrained Argumentation Framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T07:27:27Z)
• Identification for Tree-shaped Structural Causal Models in Polynomial Time [1.5151556900495786]
  Identifying causal parameters from correlations between nodes is an open problem in artificial intelligence. In this paper, we study SCMs whose directed component forms a tree. We present a randomized-time algorithm, which solves the identification problem for tree-shaped SCMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-23T15:26:29Z)
• Neuro-Symbolic Integration Brings Causal and Reliable Reasoning Proofs [95.07757789781213]
  Two lines of approaches are adopted for complex reasoning with LLMs. One line of work prompts LLMs with various reasoning structures, while the structural outputs can be naturally regarded as intermediate reasoning steps. The other line of work adopt LLM-free declarative solvers to do the reasoning task, rendering higher reasoning accuracy but lacking interpretability due to the black-box nature of the solvers. We present a simple extension to the latter line of work. Specifically, we showcase that the intermediate search logs generated by Prolog interpreters can be accessed and interpreted into human-readable reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T11:26:21Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way. Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Query Structure Modeling for Inductive Logical Reasoning Over Knowledge Graphs [67.043747188954]
  We propose a structure-modeled textual encoding framework for inductive logical reasoning over KGs. It encodes linearized query structures and entities using pre-trained language models to find answers. We conduct experiments on two inductive logical reasoning datasets and three transductive datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T01:25:29Z)
• Analytical Solutions for the Inverse Problem within Gradual Semantics [3.957174470017176]
  We show how an analytical approach can be used to solve the inverse problem in gradual semantics. Unlike the current state-of-the-art, such an approach can rapidly find a solution, and is guaranteed to do so.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-02T15:55:10Z)
• Variational Causal Networks: Approximate Bayesian Inference over Causal Structures [132.74509389517203]
  We introduce a parametric variational family modelled by an autoregressive distribution over the space of discrete DAGs. In experiments, we demonstrate that the proposed variational posterior is able to provide a good approximation of the true posterior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T17:52:49Z)
• From Checking to Inference: Actual Causality Computations as Optimization Problems [79.87179017975235]
  We present a novel approach to formulate different notions of causal reasoning, over binary acyclic models, as optimization problems. We show that both notions are efficiently automated. Using models with more than $8000$ variables, checking is computed in a matter of seconds, with MaxSAT outperforming ILP in many cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-05T10:56:52Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.