Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Argumentation is a promising approach for defeasible reasoning. It consists of justifying each plausible conclusion by arguments. Since the available information may be inconsistent, a conclusion and its negation may both be justified. The arguments are thus said to be conflicting. The main issue is how to evaluate the arguments. Several semantics were proposed for that purpose. The most important ones are: stable, preferred, complete, grounded and admissible. A semantics is a set of criteria that should be satisfied by a set of arguments, called extension, in order to be acceptable. Different decision problems related to these semantics were defined (like whether an argumentation framework has a stable extension). It was also shown that most of these problems are intractable. Consequently, developing algorithms for these problems is not trivial and thus the implementation of argumentation systems not obvious. Recently, some solutions to this problem were found. The idea is to use a reduction method where a given problem is translated in another one like SAT or ASP. This paper follows this line of research. It studies how to encode the problem of computing the extensions of an argumentation framework (under each of the previous semantics) as a constraint satisfaction problem (CSP). Such encoding is of great importance since it makes it possible to use the very efficient solvers (developed by the CSP community) for computing the extensions. Our encodings take advantage of existing reductions to SAT problems in the case of Dung’s abstract framework. Among the various ways of translating a SAT problem into a CSP one, we propose the most appropriate one in the argumentation context. We also provide encodings in case two other families of argumentation frameworks: the constrained version of Dung’s abstract framework and preference-based argumentation framework.

In this paper we describe a formalism for integrating the SHOP HTN planning system with the IMPACT multi-agent environment. We define the A-SHOP algorithm, an agentized adaptation of the SHOP planning algorithm that takes advantage of IMPACT's capabilities for interacting with external agents, performing mixed symbolic/numeric computations, and making queries to distributed, heterogeneous information sources (such as arbitrary legacy and/or specialized data structures or external databases). We show that A-SHOP is both sound and complete if certain conditions are met.

Constraints and quantitative preferences, or costs, are very useful for modelling many real-life problems. However, in many settings, it is difficult to specify precise preference values, and it is much more reasonable to allow for preference intervals. We define several notions of optimal solutions for such problems, providing algorithms to find optimal solutions and also to test whether a solution is optimal. Most of the time these algorithms just require the solution of soft constraint problems, which suggests that it may be possible to handle this form of uncertainty in soft constraints without significantly increasing the computational effort needed to reason with such problems. This is supported also by experimental results. We also identify classes of problems where the same results hold if users are allowed to use multiple disjoint intervals rather than a single one.

We analyze and compare two solvers for Boolean optimization problems: WMaxSatz, a solver for Partial MaxSAT, and MinSatz, a solver for Partial MinSAT. Both MaxSAT and MinSAT are similar, but previous results indicate that when solving optimization problems using both solvers, the performance is quite different on some cases. For getting insights about the differences in the performance of the two solvers, we analyze their behaviour when solving 2SAT-MaxOnes problem instances, given that 2SAT-MaxOnes is probably the most simple, but NP-hard, optimization problem we can solve with them. The analysis is based first on the study of the bounds computed by both algorithms on some particular 2SAT-MaxOnes instances, characterized by the presence of certain particular structures. We find that the fraction of positive literals in the clauses is an important factor regarding the quality of the bounds computed by the algorithms. Then, we also study the importance of this factor on the typical case complexity of Random-p 2SAT-MaxOnes, a variant of the problem where instances are randomly generated with a probability p of having positive literals in the clauses. For the case p=0, the performance results indicate a clear advantage of MinSatz with respect to WMaxSatz, but as we consider positive values of p WMaxSatz starts to show a better performance, although at the same time the typical complexity of Random-p 2SAT-MaxOnes decreases as p increases. We also study the typical value of the bound computed by the two algorithms on these sets of instances, showing that the behaviour is consistent with our analysis of the bounds computed on the particular instances we studied first.

Coalitional games provide a useful tool for modeling cooperation in multiagent systems. An important special class of coalitional games is weighted voting games, in which each player has a weight (intuitively corresponding to its contribution), and a coalition is successful if the sum of its members’ weights meets or exceeds a given threshold. A key question in coalitional games is finding coalitions and payoff division schemes that are stable, i.e., no group of players has any rational incentive to leave. In this paper, we investigate the computational complexity of stability-related questions for weighted voting games. We study problems involving the core, the least core, and the nucleolus, distinguishing those that are polynomial-time computable from those that are NP-hard or coNP-hard, and providing pseudopolynomial and approximation algorithms for some of the computationally hard problems.