Skip to main content

A Practical Account into Counting Dung’s Extensions by Dynamic Programming

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 13416))

Abstract

Abstract argumentation and Dung’s framework are popular for modeling and evaluating arguments in artificial intelligence. We consider various counting problems in abstract argumentation under practical aspects. We revisit algorithms and establish a framework that employs dynamic programming on tree decompositions for counting extensions of abstract argumentation frameworks under admissible, stable, and complete semantics. We provide an empirical evaluation and investigate conditions under which our approach is useful.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    System and supplement are available on github:gorczyca/dp_on_dbs and Zenodo.

  2. 2.

    \(\mu \)-toksia does not have encodings readily accessible as it is tightly coupled to a SAT solver. This would require extraction from source code or implementing it ourselves.

References

  1. Alviano, M.: The PYGLAF argumentation reasoner. In: ICLP 2017 (Technical Communications). OASICS, vol. 58, pp. 2:1–2:3, Dagstuhl (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alviano, M., Dodaro, C., Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M., Philipp, T., Rath, J.: Inconsistency proofs for ASP: the ASP - DRUPE format. TPLP 19(5–6), 891–907 (2019)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. AIJ 173(3–4), 413–436 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Besin, V., Hecher, M., Woltran, S.: Utilizing treewidth for quantitative reasoning on epistemic logic programs. TPLP 21(5), 575–592 (2021)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Charwat, G.: Tree-decomposition based algorithms for abstract argumentation framework. Master’s thesis, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Codd, E.F.: A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Commun. ACM 13(6), 377–387 (1970)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Dietz, E., Fichte, J.K., Hamiti, F.: A quantitative symbolic approach to individual human reasoning. In: Proceedings of CogSci 2022 (2022, to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. AIJ 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Dvořák, W., Rapberger, A., Wallner, J.P., Woltran, S.: ASPARTIX-V19 - an answer-set programming based system for abstract argumentation. In: Herzig, A., Kontinen, J. (eds.) FoIKS 2020. LNCS, vol. 12012, pp. 79–89. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39951-1_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Dvořák, W., Pichler, R., Woltran, S.: Towards fixed-parameter tractable algorithms for abstract argumentation. AIJ 186, 1–37 (2012)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Fandinno, J., Hecher, M.: Treewidth-aware complexity in ASP: not all positive cycles are equally hard. In: AAAI 2021, pp. 6312–6320. AAAI Press (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M., Kieler, M.F.I.: Treewidth-aware quantifier elimination and expansion for QCSP. In: Simonis, H. (ed.) CP 2020. LNCS, vol. 12333, pp. 248–266. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58475-7_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M., Meier, A.: Knowledge-base degrees of inconsistency: complexity and counting. In: AAA 2021, pp. 6349–6357. No. 7, The AAAI Press (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M., Nadeem, M.A.: Plausibility reasoning via projected answer set counting–a hybrid approach. In: IJCAI 2022 (2022, to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M., Pfandler, A.: Lower bounds for QBFs of bounded treewidth. In: LICS 2020, pp. 410–424. Associating for Computing Machinery, New York (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M., Roland, V.: Parallel model counting with CUDA: algorithm engineering for efficient hardware utilization. In: CP 2021, pp. 24:1–24:20 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M., Roland, V.: Proofs for propositional model counting. In: SAT 2022 (2022, to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M., Thier, P., Woltran, S.: Exploiting database management systems and treewidth for counting. TPLP 22(1), 128–157 (2022)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Fichte, J.K., Gaggl, S.A., Rusovac, D.: Rushing and strolling among answer sets - navigation made easy. In: Proceedings of the 36th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2022). The AAAI Press (2022, to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fichte, J.K., Hecher, M., McCreesh, C., Shahab, A.: Complications for computational experiments from modern processors. In: CP 2021, pp. 25:1–25:21 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hecher, M., Thier, P., Woltran, S.: Taming high treewidth with abstraction, nested dynamic programming, and database technology. In: Pulina, L., Seidl, M. (eds.) SAT 2020. LNCS, vol. 12178, pp. 343–360. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51825-7_25

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Lagniez, J., Lonca, E., Mailly, J., Rossit, J.: Design and results of ICCMA 2021. CoRR abs/2109.08884 (2021). https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.08884

  23. Niskanen, A., Järvisalo, M.: \(\rm \mu \)-toksia: an efficient abstract argumentation reasoner. In: KR 2020, pp. 800–804 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rago, A., Cocarascu, O., Toni, F.: Argumentation-based recommendations: fantastic explanations and how to find them. In: IJCAI 2018, pp. 1949–1955 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ullman, J.D.: Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems, vol. II. Computer Science Press, New York (1989)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research was funded by the DFG through the Collaborative Research Center, Grant TRR 248 project ID 389792660, the BMBF, Grant 01IS20056_NAVAS, the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) grant ICT19-065, and the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) grants P32830 and Y698.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Klaus Fichte .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Dewoprabowo, R., Fichte, J.K., Gorczyca, P.J., Hecher, M. (2022). A Practical Account into Counting Dung’s Extensions by Dynamic Programming. In: Gottlob, G., Inclezan, D., Maratea, M. (eds) Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LPNMR 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13416. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15707-3_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15707-3_30

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15706-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15707-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics