Abstract solvers for Dung’s argumentation frameworks

Brochenin, Rémi; Linsbichler, Thomas; Maratea, Marco; Wallner, Johannes; Woltran, Stefan

doi:10.3233/aac-170031

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As far as the application of abstract solvers methodology outside ASP is concerned, the first application has been already mentioned and is related to the seminal paper (Nieuwenhuis et al 2006), where SMT problems with certain logics via a lazy approach (Sebastiani 2007) are considered. Then, abstract solvers have been presented for the satisfiability of Quantified Boolean Formulas by Brochenin and Maratea (2015b), and for solving certain reasoning taks in Abstract Argumentation under preferred semantics (Brochenin et al 2018). Finally, in another number of papers, starting from a developed concept of modularity in answer set solving (Lierler and Truszczynski 2013), abstract modeling of solvers for multi-logic systems are presented (Lierler and Truszczynski 2014;Lierler and Truszczynski 2015;Lierler and Truszczynski 2016).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another added, general, value of our paper is in its practical part, i.e., an implementation of new solutions designed through abstract solvers. In fact, while nowadays abstract solvers methodology has been widely used, often in the mentioned papers the presented results have rarely led to implementations, with the exception of (Nieuwenhuis et al 2006), where the related BARCE-LOGIC implementation won the SMT Competition 2005 on same logics, and (Lierler 2011), where a proposed combination of SMODELS and CMODELS techniques has been implemented in the solver SUP, that reached positive results at the ASP Competition 2011 and, more recently, (Brochenin et al 2018), where the new designed solution, obtained as a modification of the CEGARTIX solver, performed often better than the basic CERGATIX solver on preferred semantics, that was among the best solvers in the first ICCMA competition.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Abstract Solvers for Computing Cautious Consequences of ASP programs

Amendola¹,

Dodaro²,

Maratea³

2019

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

solvers are a method to formally analyze algorithms that have been profitably used for describing, comparing and composing solving techniques in various fields such as Propositional Satisfiability (SAT), Quantified SAT, Satisfiability Modulo Theories, Answer Set Programming (ASP), and Constraint ASP.In this paper, we design, implement and test novel abstract solutions for cautious reasoning tasks in ASP. We show how to improve the current abstract solvers for cautious reasoning in ASP with new techniques borrowed from backbone computation in SAT, in order to design new solving algorithms. By doing so, we also formally show that the algorithms for solving cautious reasoning tasks in ASP are strongly related to those for computing backbones of Boolean formulas. We implement some of the new solutions in the ASP solver WASP and show that their performance are comparable to state-of-the-art solutions on the benchmark problems from the past ASP Competitions. Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP. KEYWORDS:Answer Set Programming, Abstract solvers, Cautious reasoning solver, SUP (Lierler 2011); however, abstract solvers have been so far mainly applied to ASP solvers for brave reasoning tasks where, given an input query and a knowledge base expressed in ASP, answers are witnessed by ASP solutions, i.e., stable models (Baral 2003;Eiter et al. 1997;Gelfond and Lifschitz 1988;Gelfond and Lifschitz 1991;Marek and Truszczyński 1998;Niemelä 1999).However, in ASP, also cautious reasoning has been deeply studied in the literature: answers here must be witnessed by all stable models. This task has found a significant number of interesting applications as well, including consistent query answering (Arenas et al. 2003;Manna et al. 2013), data integration (Eiter 2005), multi-context systems (Brewka and Eiter 2007), and ontology-based reasoning (Eiter et al. 2008). Two well-known ASP solvers, i.e., DLV (Leone et al. 2006) and CLASP (Gebser et al. 2012), have been extended for computing cautious consequences of ASP programs. More recently, Alviano et al. (2014) presented a unified, high-level view of such solving procedures, and designed several algorithms for cautious reasoning in ASP, including those implemented in DLV and CLASP, borrowed from the backbone computation of Boolean formulas (Janota et al. 2015): all these techniques are implemented (and tested) on top of the ASP solver WASP (Alviano et al. 2015).In this paper we design, implement and test novel abstract solutions for cautious reasoning tasks in ASP. We show how to improve the current abstract solvers (Brochenin and Maratea 2015a) for cautious reasoning in ASP with further techniques borrowed from backbone computation in SAT, in order to design new solving algorithms. In particular, we import a technique called "chunk", which generalizes over-and under-approximation by testing a set soft atoms simultaneously for being added in the under-approximation, and core-based algorithms, which can be considered either a solution per se, or a way for pruning the set of atoms t...

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abstract Solvers for Computing Cautious Consequences of ASP programs

Amendola¹,

Dodaro²,

Maratea³

2019

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A set of arguments and the relationships between them can be represented as a directed graph (referred to as an argumentation framework) to which one of a number of semantics can be applied to determine which arguments it is coherent to accept [12]. While progress has been made in the development of argumentation-based technologies (e.g., argument solvers [5] and real-world applications [18]) realistic evaluations of such technologies is difficult, due to the shortage of repositories of argumentation frameworks that are representative of real-world domains [10]; typically, argument technologies are evaluated on randomly generated frameworks, with little understanding of how the structure of such frameworks impacts on performance. It has been shown that structural differences in argumentation frameworks can affect the performance of argumentation-based technologies, such as dialogue systems [3] and argument solvers [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation of Argumentation Framework Characteristics

Murphy

Sassoon

Lück

et al. 2018

Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the relationship between the structural properties of argumentation frameworks and their argument-based characteristics, examining the characteristics of structures of Dung-style frameworks and two generalisations: extended argumentation frameworks and collective-attack frameworks. Our results show that the structural properties of frameworks have an impact on the size of extensions produced, on the proportion of subsets of arguments that determine some topic argument to be acceptable, and on the likelihood that the addition of some new argument will affect the acceptability of an existing argument, all characteristics that are known to affect the performance of argumentation-based technologies. We demonstrate the applicability of our results with two case studies.

show abstract

“…Existing works in the abstract argumentation field [18,19] either focus on algorithm selection for enumerating preferred extensions, with a very small number of solvers and of instances; or on theoretical complementariness of algorithms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the impact of configuration on abstract argumentation automated reasoning

Cerutti

Vallati

Giacomin

2018

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we consider the impact of configuration of abstract argumentation reasoners both when using a single solver and choosing combinations of framework representation-solver options; and also when composing portfolios of algorithms. To exemplify the impact of the framework-solver configuration we consider one of the most configurable solvers, namely ArgSemSAT-runner-up of the last competition on computational models of argumentation (ICCMA-15)-for enumerating preferred extensions. We discuss how to configure the representation of the argumentation framework in the input file and show how this coupled framework-solver configuration can have a remarkable impact on performance. As to the impact of configuring differently structured portfolios of abstract argumentation solvers, we consider the solvers submitted to ICCMA-15, which provided the community with a heterogeneous panorama of approaches for handling abstract argumentation frameworks. A superficial reading of the results of ICCMA-15 is that reduction-based systems (either SAT-based or ASP-based) are always the most efficient. Our investigation, concerning the enumeration of stable and preferred extensions, shows that this is not true in full generality and suggests the areas where the relatively underdeveloped non reduction-based systems should focus more to improve their performance. Moreover, it also highlights that the state-of-the-art solvers are very complementary and can be successfully combined in portfolios.

show abstract

Abstract solvers for Dung’s argumentation frameworks

Cited by 3 publications

References 39 publications

Abstract Solvers for Computing Cautious Consequences of ASP programs

Abstract Solvers for Computing Cautious Consequences of ASP programs

An Investigation of Argumentation Framework Characteristics

On the impact of configuration on abstract argumentation automated reasoning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About