The Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT) is a well-known example of monotonic reasoning, of intense practical interest due to fast solvers, complemented by rigorous fine-grained complexity results. However, for non-monotonic reasoning, e.g., abductive reasoning, comparably little is known outside classic complexity theory. In this paper we take a first step of bridging the gap between monotonic and non-monotonic reasoning by analyzing the complexity of intractable abduction problems under the seemingly overlooked but natural parameter n: the number of variables in the knowledge base. We obtain several positive results for ΣP2 - as well as NP- and coNP-complete fragments, which implies the first example of beating exhaustive search for a ΣP2 -complete problem (to the best of our knowledge). We complement this with lower bounds and for many fragments rule out improvements under the (strong) exponential-time hypothesis.

Abductive reasoning is a popular non-monotonic paradigm that aims to explain observed symptoms and manifestations. It has many applications, such as diagnosis and planning in artificial intelligence and database updates. In propositional abduction, we focus on specifying knowledge by a propositional formula. The computational complexity of tasks in propositional abduction has been systematically characterized - even with detailed classifications for Boolean fragments. Unsurprisingly, the most insightful reasoning problems (counting and enumeration) are computationally highly challenging. Therefore, we consider reasoning between decisions and counting, allowing us to understand explanations better while maintaining favorable complexity. We introduce facets to propositional abductions, which are literals that occur in some explanation (relevant) but not all explanations (dispensable). Reasoning with facets provides a more fine-grained understanding of variability in explanations (heterogeneous). In addition, we consider the distance between two explanations, enabling a better understanding of heterogeneity/homogeneity. We comprehensively analyze facets of propositional abduction in various settings, including an almost complete characterization in Post's framework.

Explaining why and how a tree t structurally differs from another tree t* is a question that is encountered throughout computer science, including in understanding tree-structured data such as XML or JSON data. In this article, we explore how to learn explanations for structural differences between pairs of trees from sample data: suppose we are given a set {(t1, t*1), . . ., (tn, t*n)} of pairs of labelled, ordered trees; is there a small set of rules that explains the structural differences between all pairs (ti, t*i)? This raises two research questions: (i) what is a good notion of “rule” in this context?; and (ii) how can sets of rules explaining a data set be learned algorithmically? We explore these questions from the perspective of database theory by (1) introducing a pattern-based specification language for tree transformations; (2) exploring the computational complexity of variants of the above algorithmic problem, e.g. showing NP-hardness for very restricted variants; and (3) discussing how to solve the problem for data from CS education research using SAT solvers.

Argumentation is a well-established formalism for nonmonotonic reasoning, with popular frameworks being Dung's abstract argumentation (AFs) or logic-based argumentation (Besnard-Hunter’s framework). Structurally, a set of formulas forms support for a claim if it is consistent, subset-minimal, and implies the claim. Then, an argument comprises support and a claim. We observe that the computational task (ARG) of asking for support of a claim in a knowledge base is "brave", since many claims with a single support are accepted. As a result, ARG falls short when it comes to the question of confidence in a claim, or claim strength. In this paper, we propose a concept for measuring the (acceptance) strength of claims, based on counting supports for a claim. Further, we settle classical and structural complexity of counting arguments favoring a given claim in propositional knowledge bases (KBs). We introduce quantitative reasoning to measure the strength of claims in a KB and to determine the relevance strength of a formula for a claim.

Many AI-related reasoning problems are based on the problem of satisfiability of propositional formulas with some cardinality-minimality condition. While the complexity of the satisfiability problem (SAT) is well understood when considering systematically all fragments of propositional logic within Schaefer’s framework, this is not the case when such minimality condition is added. We consider the CARDMINSAT problem, which asks, given a formula ϕ and an atom x, whether x is true in some cardinality-minimal model of ϕ. We completely classify the computational complexity of the CARDMINSAT problem within Schaefer’s framework, thus paving the way for a better understanding of the tractability frontier of many AI-related reasoning problems. To this end we use advanced algebraic tools.

Argumentation is a well-established formalism dealing with conflicting information by generating and comparing arguments. It has been playing a major role in AI for decades. In logic-based argumentation, we explore the internal structure of an argument. 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 article, 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 (Creignou et al. 2014 and Parson et al., 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 fragments. 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 (para-NP and beyond).

Abductive reasoning is a non-monotonic formalism stemming from the work of Peirce. It describes the process of deriving the most plausible explanations of known facts. Considering the positive version, asking for sets of variables as explanations, we study, besides the problem of wether there exists a set of explanations, two explanation size limited variants of this reasoning problem (less than or equal to, and equal to a given size bound). In this paper, we present a thorough two-dimensional classification of these problems: the first dimension is regarding the parameterized complexity under a wealth of different parameterizations, and the second dimension spans through all possible Boolean fragments of these problems in Schaefer's constraint satisfaction framework with co-clones (T. J. Schaefer. The complexity of satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, May 1-3, 1978, San Diego, California, USA, R.J. Lipton, W.A. Burkhard, W.J. Savitch, E.P. Friedman, A.V. Aho eds, pp. 216-226. ACM, 1978). Thereby, we almost complete the parameterized complexity classification program initiated by Fellows et al. (The parameterized complexity of abduction. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Articial Intelligence, July 22-26, 2012, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, J. Homann, B. Selman eds. AAAI Press, 2012), partially building on the results by Nordh and Zanuttini (What makes propositional abduction tractable. Artificial Intelligence, 172, 1245-1284, 2008). In this process, we outline a fine-grained analysis of the inherent parameterized intractability of these problems and pinpoint their FPT parts. As the standard algebraic approach is not applicable to our problems, we develop an alternative method that makes the algebraic tools partially available again.

Logic-based argumentation is a well-established formalism modeling 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 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, 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).

Obtaining lower bounds for NP-hard problems has for a long time been an active area of research. Algebraic techniques introduced by Jonsson et al. (2017) [4] show that the fine-grained time complexity of the parameterized [Formula presented] problem correlates to the lattice of strong partial clones. With this ordering they isolated a relation R such that [Formula presented] can be solved at least as fast as any other NP-hard [Formula presented] problem. In this paper we extend this method and show that such languages also exist for the surjective SAT problem, the max ones problem, the propositional abduction problem, and the Boolean valued constraint satisfaction problem over finite-valued constraint languages. These languages may be interesting when investigating the borderline between polynomial time, subexponential time and exponential-time algorithms since they in a precise sense can be regarded as NP-hard problems with minimum time complexity. Indeed, with the help of these languages we relate all of the above problems to the exponential time hypothesis (ETH) in several different ways.

Abductive reasoning is a non-monotonic formalism stemming from the work of Peirce. It describes the process of deriving the most plausible explanations of known facts. Considering the positive version asking for sets of variables as explanations, we study, besides asking for existence of the set of explanations, two explanation size limited variants of this reasoning problem (less than or equal to, and equal to). In this paper, we present a thorough two-dimensional classification of these problems. The first dimension is regarding the parameterised complexity under a wealth of different parameterisations. The second dimension spans through all possible Boolean fragments of these problems in Schaefer’s constraint satisfaction framework with co-clones (STOC 1978). Thereby, we almost complete the parameterised picture started by Fellows et al. (AAAI 2012), partially building on results of Nordh and Zanuttini (Artif. Intell. 2008). In this process, we outline a fine-grained analysis of the inherent parameterised intractability of these problems and pinpoint their FPT parts. As the standard algebraic approach is not applicable to our problems, we develop an alternative method that makes the algebraic tools partially available again.