Tuomo Lehtonen

Xia Zong, Tuomo Lehtonen, Jussi Rintanen

In many decision-making scenarios, acquiring information incurs different costs. We consider the problem of constructing a deterministic evaluation strategy that minimizes the expected cost of evaluating a propositional formula under variable costs and a probability distribution over truth assignments. We present a branch-and-bound algorithm with variable-selection heuristics, pruning, and caching. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first practical exact algorithm for this level of generality. Experiments on random instances demonstrate scalability and quantify the efficiency-quality trade-off of a greedy beam-search variant. We additionally evaluate a structured heart-disease diagnosis instance. Finally, we prove that the problem is $\#P$-hard and contained in $\mathrm{PSPACE}$.

Tuomo Lehtonen, Anna Rapberger, Francesca Toni et al.

Most existing computational tools for assumption-based argumentation (ABA) focus on so-called flat frameworks, disregarding the more general case. In this paper, we study an instantiation-based approach for reasoning in possibly non-flat ABA. We make use of a semantics-preserving translation between ABA and bipolar argumentation frameworks (BAFs). By utilizing compilability theory, we establish that the constructed BAFs will in general be of exponential size. In order to keep the number of arguments and computational cost low, we present three ways of identifying redundant arguments. Moreover, we identify fragments of ABA which admit a poly-sized instantiation. We propose two algorithmic approaches for reasoning in possibly non-flat ABA. The first approach utilizes the BAF instantiation while the second works directly without constructing arguments. An empirical evaluation shows that the former outperforms the latter on many instances, reflecting the lower complexity of BAF reasoning. This result is in contrast to flat ABA, where direct approaches dominate instantiation-based approaches.

Tuomo Lehtonen, Johannes P. Wallner, Matti Järvisalo

Assumption-based argumentation (ABA) is a central structured argumentation formalism. As shown recently, answer set programming (ASP) enables efficiently solving NP-hard reasoning tasks of ABA in practice, in particular in the commonly studied logic programming fragment of ABA. In this work, we harness recent advances in incremental ASP solving for developing effective algorithms for reasoning tasks in the logic programming fragment of ABA that are presumably hard for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy, including skeptical reasoning under preferred semantics as well as preferential reasoning. In particular, we develop non-trivial counterexample-guided abstraction refinement procedures based on incremental ASP solving for these tasks. We also show empirically that the procedures are significantly more effective than previously proposed algorithms for the tasks. This paper is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.