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.

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.

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.

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.

The exact relationship between formal argumentation and nonmonotonic logics is a research topic that keeps on eluding researchers despite recent intensified efforts. We contribute to a deeper understanding of this relation by investigating characterizations of abstract dialectical frameworks in conditional logics for nonmonotonic reasoning. We first show that in general, there is a gap between argumentation and conditional semantics when applying several intuitive translations, but then prove that this gap can be closed when focusing on specific classes of translations.

We address the issue of quantitatively assessing the severity of inconsistencies in nonmonotonic frameworks. While measuring inconsistency in classical logics has been investigated for some time now, taking the nonmonotonicity into account poses new challenges. In order to tackle them, we focus on the structure of minimal strongly kb-inconsistent subsets of a knowledge base kb---a generalization of minimal inconsistency to arbitrary, possibly nonmonotonic, frameworks. We propose measures based on this notion and investigate their behavior in a nonmonotonic setting by revisiting existing rationality postulates, analyzing the compliance of the proposed measures with these postulates, and by investigating their computational complexity.

Towards Artificial Argumentation

The field of computational models of argument is emerging as an important aspect of artificial intelligence research. The reason for this is based on the recognition that if we are to develop robust intelligent systems, then it is imperative that they can handle incomplete and inconsistent information in a way that somehow emulates the way humans tackle such a complex task. And one of the key ways that humans do this is to use argumentation either internally, by evaluating arguments and counterarguments‚ or externally, by for instance entering into a discussion or debate where arguments are exchanged. As we report in this review, recent developments in the field are leading to technology for artificial argumentation, in the legal, medical, and e-government domains, and interesting tools for argument mining, for debating technologies, and for argumentation solvers are emerging.

Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating arguments and counterarguments. This approach can be enhanced by considering probability assignments on arguments, allowing for a quantitative treatment of formal argumentation. In this paper, we regard the assignment as denoting the degree of belief that an agent has in an argument being acceptable. While there are various interpretations of this, an example is how it could be applied to a deductive argument. Here, the degree of belief that an agent has in an argument being acceptable is a combination of the degree to which it believes the premises, the claim, and the derivation of the claim from the premises. We consider constraints on these probability assignments, inspired by crisp notions from classical abstract argumentation frameworks and discuss the issue of probabilistic reasoning with abstract argumentation frameworks. Moreover, we consider the scenario when assessments on the probabilities of a subset of the arguments are given and the probabilities of the remaining arguments have to be derived, taking both the topology of the argumentation framework and principles of probabilistic reasoning into account. We generalise this scenario by also considering inconsistent assessments, i.e., assessments that contradict the topology of the argumentation framework. Building on approaches to inconsistency measurement, we present a general framework to measure the amount of conflict of these assessments and provide a method for inconsistency-tolerant reasoning.

We review the First International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICMMA'15). The competition evaluated submitted solvers performance on four different computational tasks related to solving abstract argumentation frameworks. Each task evaluated solvers in ways that pushed the edge of existing performance by introducing new challenges. Despite being the first competition in this area, the high number of competitors entered, and differences in results, suggest that the competition will help shape the landscape of ongoing developments in argumentation theory solvers.