In the context of Dung's theory of abstract argumentation frameworks, the recently introduced resolution-based grounded semantics features the unique property of fully complying with a set of general requirements, only partially satisfied by previous literature proposals. This paper contributes to the investigation of resolution-based grounded semantics by analyzing its computational properties with reference to a standard set of decision problems for abstract argumentation semantics: (a) checking the property of being an extension for a set of arguments; (b) checking agreement with traditional grounded semantics; (c) checking the existence of a non-empty extension; (d) checking credulous acceptance of an argument; (e) checking skeptical acceptance of an argument. It is shown that problems (a)-(c) admit polynomial time decision processes, while (d) is NP-complete and (e) coNP-complete.

In rules considered in this paper, the conclusion may contain existentially quantified variables, which makes reasoning tasks (as deduction) non-decidable. These rules have the same logical form as TGD (tuple generating dependencies) in databases and as conceptual graph rules. We extend known decidable cases by combining backward and forward chaining schemes, in association with a graph that captures exactly the notion of dependency between rules. Finally, we draw a map of known decidable cases, including an extension obtained by combining our approach with very recent results on TGD.

In this article we discuss two alternative proposals for neighbourhood semantics (which we call strict and loose neighbourhood semantics, NSS and NSL respectively) that have been previously introduced in the literature. Our main tools are suitable notions of bisimulation. While an elegant notion of bisimulation exists for NSL, the required bisimulation for NSS is rather involved. We propose a simple extension of NSS with a universal modality that we call NSS(E), which comes together with a natural notion of bisimulation. We also investigate the complexity of the satisfiability problem for NSL and NSS(E).

Argumentation is a reasoning model based on the construction and evaluation of arguments. Dung has proposed an abstract argumentation framework in which arguments are assumed to have the same strength. This assumption is unfortunately not realistic. Consequently, three main extensions of the framework have been proposed in the literature. The basic idea is that if an argument is stronger than its attacker, the attack fails. The aim of the paper is twofold: First, it shows that the three extensions of Dung framework may lead to unintended results. Second, it proposes a new approach that takes into account the strengths of arguments, and that ensures sound results. We start by presenting two minimal requirements that any preference-based argumentation framework should satisfy, namely the conflict-freeness of arguments extensions and the generalization of Dung’s framework. Inspired from works on handling inconsistency in knowledge bases, the proposed approach defines a binary relation on the powerset of arguments. The maximal elements of this relation represent the extensions of the new framework.

Recent work on Alternating-Time Temporal Logic and Coalition Logic has allowed the expression of many interesting properties of coalitions and strategies. However there is no natural way of expressing resource requirements in these logics. This paper presents a Resource-Bounded Coalition Logic (RBCL) which has explicit representation of resource bounds in the language, and gives a complete and sound axiomatisation of RBCL.

Logic reasoning approaches to fault diagnosis account for the fact that a component c j may fail intermittently by introducing a parameter g j that expresses the probability the component exhibits correct behavior. This component parameter g j , in conjunction with a priori fault probability, is usedin a Bayesian framework to compute the posterior fault candidate probabilities. Usually, information on g j is not known a priori. While proper estimation of g j can have a great impact on the diagnostic accuracy, at present, only approximations have been proposed. We present a novel framework, BARINEL, that computes exact estimations of g j as integral part of the posterior candidate probability computation. BARINEL’s diagnostic performance is evaluated for both synthetic and real software systems. Our results show that our approach is superior to approaches based on classical persistent fault models as well as previously proposed intermittent fault models.

There are two basic approaches to generalize the propagation mechanism of the two-player Minimax search algorithm to multi-player (3 or more) games: the MaxN algorithm and the Paranoid algorithm. The main shortcoming of these approaches is that their strategy is fixed. In this paper we suggest a new approach (called MP-Mix) that dynamically changes the propagation strategy based on the players' relative strengths between MaxN, Paranoid and a newly presented  offensive strategy. In addition, we introduce the Opponent Impact factor for multi-player games, which measures the players' ability to impact their opponents' score, and show its relation to the relative performance of our new MP-Mix strategy. Experimental results show that MP-Mix outperforms all other approaches under most circumstances.

For these algorithms, use of a suboptimal elimination order leads to inefficiency, and improving Breadth-first and depth-first search are basic search an elimination order by even small amount can result in strategies upon which many other search algorithms large computational savings. Solving the treewidth problem are built. In this paper, we describe an approach exactly, and finding an optimal elimination order, allows these to integrating these two strategies in a single algorithms to run as efficiently as possible.

Early research in heuristic search discovered that using inconsistent heuristics with A* could result in an exponential increase in the number of node expansions. As a result, the use of inconsistent heuristics has largely disappeared from practice. Recently, inconsistent heuristics have been shown to be effective in IDA*, especially when applying the bidirectional pathmax (BPMX) enhancement. This paper presents new worst-case complexity analysis of A*'s behavior with inconsistent heuristics, discusses how BPMX can be used with A*, and gives experimental results justifying the use of inconsistent heuristics in A* searches.

Qualitative Spatial and Temporal Reasoning (QSR) is concerned with constraint-based formalisms for representing, and reasoning with, spatial and temporal information over infinite domains.  Within the QSR community it has been a widely accepted assumption that genuine qualitative reasoning methods outperform other reasoning methods that are applicable to encodings of qualitative CSP instances. Recently this assumption has been tackled by several authors, who proposed to encode qualitative CSP instances as finite CSP or SAT instances. In this paper we report on the results of a broad empirical study in which we compared the performance of several reasoners on instances from different qualitative formalisms. Our results show that for small-sized qualitative calculi (e.g., Allen's interval algebra and RCC-8) a state-of-the-art implementation of QSR methods currently gives the most efficient performance. However, on recently suggested large-size calculi, e.g., OPRA4, finite CSP encodings provide a considerable performance gain. These results confirm a conjecture by Bessière stating that support-based constraint propagation algorithms provide better performance for large-sized qualitative calculi.