Arrow Research search

Author name cluster

Arne Meier

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

26 papers
2 author rows

Possible papers

26

CSL Conference 2026 Conference Paper

Disjunctions of Two Dependence Atoms

  • Nicolas Fröhlich 0001
  • Phokion G. Kolaitis
  • Arne Meier

Dependence logic is a formalism that augments the syntax of first-order logic with dependence atoms asserting that the value of a variable is determined by the values of some other variables, i. e. , dependence atoms express functional dependencies in relational databases. On finite structures, dependence logic captures NP, hence there are sentences of dependence logic whose model-checking problem is NP-complete. In fact, it is known that there are disjunctions of three dependence atoms whose model-checking problem is NP-complete. Motivated from considerations in database theory, we study the model-checking problem for disjunctions of two unary dependence atoms and establish a trichotomy theorem, namely, for every such formula, one of the following is true for the model-checking problem: (i) it is NL-complete; (ii) it is L-complete; (iii) it is first-order definable (hence, in AC⁰). Furthermore, we classify the complexity of the model-checking problem for disjunctions of two arbitrary dependence atoms, and also characterize when such a disjunction is coherent, i. e. , when it satisfies a certain small-model property. Along the way, we identify a new class of 2CNF-formulas whose satisfiability problem is L-complete.

KR Conference 2025 Conference Paper

A Logic-Based Framework for Database Repairs

  • Nicolas Fröhlich
  • Arne Meier
  • Nina Pardal
  • Jonni Virtema

We introduce a general abstract framework for database repairs, where the repair notions are defined using formal logic. We distinguish between integrity constraints and so-called query constraints. The former are used to model consistency and desirable properties of the data (such as functional dependencies and independencies), while the latter relate two database instances according to their answers to the query constraints. The framework allows for a distinction between hard and soft queries, allowing the answers to a core set of queries to be preserved, as well as defining a distance between instances based on query answers. We illustrate how different repair notions from the literature can be modelled in our framework. The framework generalises both set-based and cardinality based repairs to semiring annotated databases. Finally, we initiate a complexity-theoretic analysis of consistent query answering and checking existence of a repair in our setting.

IJCAI Conference 2025 Conference Paper

Facets in Argumentation: A Formal Approach to Argument Significance

  • Johannes K. Fichte
  • Nicolas Fröhlich
  • Markus Hecher
  • Victor Lagerkvist
  • Yasir Mahmood
  • Arne Meier
  • Jonathan Persson

Argumentation is a central subarea of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for modeling and reasoning about arguments. The semantics of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) is given by sets of arguments (extensions) and conditions on the relationship between arguments, such as stable or admissible. Today's solvers implement tasks such as finding extensions, deciding credulously or skeptically acceptance, counting, or enumerating extensions. While these tasks are well charted, the area between decision and counting/enumeration and fine-grained reasoning requires expensive reasoning so far. We introduce a novel concept (facets) for reasoning between decision and enumeration. Facets are arguments that belong to some extensions (credulous) but not to all extensions (skeptical). They are most natural when a user aims to navigate, filter, or comprehend specific arguments, according to their needs. We study the complexity and show that tasks involving facets are much easier than counting extensions. Finally, we provide an implementation, and conduct experiments to demonstrate feasibility.

KR Conference 2025 Conference Paper

On the Complexity and Properties of Preferential Propositional Dependence Logic

  • Kai Sauerwald
  • Arne Meier
  • Juha Kontinen

This paper considers the complexity and properties of KLM-style preferential reasoning in the setting of propositional logic with team semantics and dependence atoms, also known as propositional dependence logic. Preferential team-based reasoning is shown to be cumulative, yet violates System P. We give intuitive conditions that fully characterise those cases where preferential propositional dependence logic satisfies System P. We show that these characterisations do, surprisingly, not carry over to preferential team-based propositional logic. Furthermore, we show how classical entailment and dependence logic entailment can be expressed in terms of non-trivial preferential models. Finally, we present the complexity of preferential team-based reasoning for two natural representations. This includes novel complexity results for classical (non-team-based) preferential reasoning.

JAIR Journal 2024 Journal Article

Counting Complexity for Reasoning in Abstract Argumentation

  • Johannes K. Fichte
  • Markus Hecher
  • Arne Meier

In this paper, we consider counting and projected model counting of extensions in abstract argumentation for various semantics, including credulous reasoning. When asking for projected counts, we are interested in counting the number of extensions of a given argumentation framework, while multiple extensions that are identical when restricted to the projected arguments count as only one projected extension. We establish classical complexity results and parameterized complexity results when the problems are parameterized by the treewidth of the undirected argumentation graph. To obtain upper bounds for counting projected extensions, we introduce novel algorithms that exploit small treewidth of the undirected argumentation graph of the input instance by dynamic programming. Our algorithms run in double or triple exponential time in the treewidth, depending on the semantics under consideration. Finally, we establish lower bounds of bounded treewidth algorithms for counting extensions and projected extension under the exponential time hypothesis (ETH).

IJCAI Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Quantitative Claim-Centric Reasoning in Logic-Based Argumentation

  • Markus Hecher
  • Yasir Mahmood
  • Arne Meier
  • Johannes Schmidt

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.

ECAI Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Rejection in Abstract Argumentation: Harder Than Acceptance?

  • Johannes Klaus Fichte
  • Markus Hecher
  • Yasir Mahmood 0002
  • Arne Meier

Abstract argumentation is a popular toolkit for modeling, evaluating, and comparing arguments. Relationships between arguments are specified in argumentation frameworks (AFs), and conditions are placed on sets (extensions) of arguments that allow AFs to be evaluated. For more expressiveness, AFs are augmented with acceptance conditions on directly interacting arguments or a constraint on the admissible sets of arguments, resulting in dialectic frameworks or constrained argumentation frameworks. In this paper, we consider flexible conditions for rejecting an argument from an extension, which we call rejection conditions (RCs). On the technical level, we associate each argument with a specific logic program. We analyze the resulting complexity, including the structural parameter treewidth. Rejection AFs are highly expressive, giving rise to natural problems on higher levels of the polynomial hierarchy.

AAAI Conference 2024 Conference Paper

Submodel Enumeration for CTL Is Hard

  • Nicolas Fröhlich
  • Arne Meier

Expressing system specifications using Computation Tree Logic (CTL) formulas, formalising programs using Kripke structures, and then model checking the system is an established workflow in program verification and has wide applications in AI. In this paper, we consider the task of model enumeration, which asks for a uniform stream of output systems that satisfy the given specification. We show that, given a CTL formula and a system (potentially falsified by the formula), enumerating satisfying submodels is always hard for CTL--regardless of which subset of CTL-operators is considered. As a silver lining on the horizon, we present fragments via restrictions on the allowed Boolean functions that still allow for fast enumeration.

JELIA Conference 2023 Conference Paper

Logics with Probabilistic Team Semantics and the Boolean Negation

  • Miika Hannula
  • Minna Hirvonen
  • Juha Kontinen
  • Yasir Mahmood 0002
  • Arne Meier
  • Jonni Virtema

Abstract We study the expressivity and the complexity of various logics in probabilistic team semantics with the Boolean negation. In particular, we study the extension of probabilistic independence logic with the Boolean negation, and a recently introduced logic FOPT. We give a comprehensive picture of the relative expressivity of these logics together with the most studied logics in probabilistic team semantics setting, as well as relating their expressivity to a numerical variant of second-order logic. In addition, we introduce novel entropy atoms and show that the extension of first-order logic by entropy atoms subsumes probabilistic independence logic. Finally, we obtain some results on the complexity of model checking, validity, and satisfiability of our logics.

IJCAI Conference 2023 Conference Paper

Quantitative Reasoning and Structural Complexity for Claim-Centric Argumentation

  • Johannes K. Fichte
  • Markus Hecher
  • Yasir Mahmood
  • Arne Meier

Argumentation is a well-established formalism for nonmonotonic reasoning and a vibrant area of research in AI. Claim-augmented argumentation frameworks (CAFs) have been introduced to deploy a conclusion-oriented perspective. CAFs expand argumentation frameworks by an additional step which involves retaining claims for an accepted set of arguments. We introduce a novel concept of a justification status for claims, a quantitative measure of extensions supporting a particular claim. The well-studied problems of credulous and skeptical reasoning can then be seen as simply the two endpoints of the spectrum when considered as a justification level of a claim. Furthermore, we explore the parameterized complexity of various reasoning problems for CAFs, including the quantitative reasoning for claim assertions. We begin by presenting a suitable graph representation that includes arguments and their associated claims. Our analysis includes the parameter treewidth, and we present decomposition-guided reductions between reasoning problems in CAF and the validity problem for QBF.

IJCAI Conference 2021 Conference Paper

Decomposition-Guided Reductions for Argumentation and Treewidth

  • Johannes Fichte
  • Markus Hecher
  • Yasir Mahmood
  • Arne Meier

Argumentation is a widely applied framework for modeling and evaluating arguments and its reasoning with various applications. Popular frameworks are abstract argumentation (Dung’s framework) or logic-based argumentation (Besnard-Hunter’s framework). Their computational complexity has been studied quite in-depth. Incorporating treewidth into the complexity analysis is particularly interesting, as solvers oftentimes employ SAT-based solvers, which can solve instances of low treewidth fast. In this paper, we address whether one can design reductions from argumentation problems to SAT-problems while linearly preserving the treewidth, which results in decomposition-guided (DG) reductions. It turns out that the linear treewidth overhead caused by our DG reductions, cannot be significantly improved under reasonable assumptions. Finally, we consider logic-based argumentation and establish new upper bounds using DG reductions and lower bounds.

AAAI Conference 2021 Conference Paper

Knowledge-Base Degrees of Inconsistency: Complexity and Counting

  • Johannes K. Fichte
  • Markus Hecher
  • Arne Meier

Description logics (DLs) are knowledge representation languages that are used in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). A common technique is to query DL knowledge-bases, e. g. , by Boolean Datalog queries, and ask for entailment. But real world knowledge-bases often have a certain inconsistency (with respect to a given query) or we are required to estimate a degree of inconsistency when using a knowledge-base. In this paper, we provide a complexity analysis of fixed-domain nonentailment (NE) on Datalog programs for well-established families of knowledge-bases (KBs). We exhibit a detailed complexity map for the decision cases, counting and projected counting, which may serve as a quantitative measure for inconsistency of a KB with respect to a query. Our results show that NE is natural for the second, third, and fourth level of the polynomial (counting) hierarchy depending on the type of the studied query (stratified, tight, normal, disjunctive) and one level higher for the projected versions. Further, we show fixed-parameter tractability by bounding the treewidth, provide a constructive algorithm, and show its theoretical limitation in terms of conditional lower bounds.

AAAI Conference 2021 Conference Paper

Parameterized Complexity of Logic-Based Argumentation in Schaefer’s Framework

  • Yasir Mahmood
  • Arne Meier
  • Johannes Schmidt

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, subsetminimal, 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, knowledgebase) 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).

AAAI Conference 2019 Conference Paper

Counting Complexity for Reasoning in Abstract Argumentation

  • Johannes K. Fichte
  • Markus Hecher
  • Arne Meier

In this paper, we consider counting and projected model counting of extensions in abstract argumentation for various semantics. When asking for projected counts we are interested in counting the number of extensions of a given argumentation framework while multiple extensions that are identical when restricted to the projected arguments count as only one projected extension. We establish classical complexity results and parameterized complexity results when the problems are parameterized by treewidth of the undirected argumentation graph. To obtain upper bounds for counting projected extensions, we introduce novel algorithms that exploit small treewidth of the undirected argumentation graph of the input instance by dynamic programming (DP). Our algorithms run in time double or triple exponential in the treewidth depending on the considered semantics. Finally, we take the exponential time hypothesis (ETH) into account and establish lower bounds of bounded treewidth algorithms for counting extensions and projected extension.

MFCS Conference 2018 Conference Paper

Team Semantics for the Specification and Verification of Hyperproperties

  • Andreas Krebs
  • Arne Meier
  • Jonni Virtema
  • Martin Zimmermann 0002

We develop team semantics for Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) to express hyperproperties, which have recently been identified as a key concept in the verification of information flow properties. Conceptually, we consider an asynchronous and a synchronous variant of team semantics. We study basic properties of this new logic and classify the computational complexity of its satisfiability, path, and model checking problem. Further, we examine how extensions of these basic logics react on adding other atomic operators. Finally, we compare its expressivity to the one of HyperLTL, another recently introduced logic for hyperproperties. Our results show that LTL under team semantics is a viable alternative to HyperLTL, which complements the expressivity of HyperLTL and has partially better algorithmic properties.

MFCS Conference 2017 Conference Paper

Model Checking and Validity in Propositional and Modal Inclusion Logics

  • Lauri Hella
  • Antti Kuusisto
  • Arne Meier
  • Jonni Virtema

Propositional and modal inclusion logic are formalisms that belong to the family of logics based on team semantics. This article investigates the model checking and validity problems of these logics. We identify complexity bounds for both problems, covering both lax and strict team semantics. By doing so, we come close to finalising the programme that ultimately aims to classify the complexities of the basic reasoning problems for modal and propositional dependence, independence, and inclusion logics.

SAT Conference 2016 Conference Paper

Strong Backdoors for Default Logic

  • Johannes Klaus Fichte
  • Arne Meier
  • Irina Schindler

Abstract In this paper, we introduce a notion of backdoors to Reiter’s propositional default logic and study structural properties of it. Also we consider the problems of backdoor detection (parameterised by the solution size) as well as backdoor evaluation (parameterised by the size of the given backdoor), for various kinds of target classes ( cnf, horn, krom, monotone, positive - unit ). We show that backdoor detection is fixed-parameter tractable for the considered target classes, and backdoor evaluation is either fixed-parameter tractable, in \({\mathrm {para}}\text {-}\varDelta ^P_2\), or in \({\mathrm {para}}\text {-}\mathrm {NP}\), depending on the target class.

TIME Conference 2015 Conference Paper

A Team Based Variant of CTL

  • Andreas Krebs
  • Arne Meier
  • Jonni Virtema

We introduce two variants of computation tree logic CTL based on team semantics: an asynchronous one and a synchronous one. For both variants we investigate the computational complexity of the satisfiability as well as the model checking problem. The satisfiability problem is shown to be EXPTIME-complete. Here it does not matter which of the two semantics are considered. For model checking we prove a PSPACE-completeess for the synchronous case, and show P-completeness for the asynchronous case. Furthermore we prove several interesting fundamental properties of both semantics.

TIME Conference 2015 Conference Paper

LTL Fragments are Hard for Standard Parameterisations

  • Martin Lück
  • Arne Meier

We classify the complexity of the LTL satisfiability and model checking problems for several standard parameterisations. The investigated parameters are temporal depth, number of propositional variables and formula treewidth, resp. , pathwidth. We show that all operator fragments of LTL under the investigated parameterisations are intractable in the sense of parameterised complexity.

TIME Conference 2015 Conference Paper

The Model Checking Fingerprints of CTL Operators

  • Andreas Krebs
  • Arne Meier
  • Martin Mundhenk

The aim of this study is to understand the inherent expressive power of CTL operators. We investigate the complexity of model checking for all CTL fragments with one CTL operator and arbitrary Boolean operators. This gives us a fingerprint of each CTL operator. The comparison between the fingerprints yields a hierarchy of the operators that mirrors their strength with respect to model checking.

TCS Journal 2013 Journal Article

Generalized satisfiability for the description logic ALC

  • Arne Meier
  • Thomas Schneider

The standard reasoning problem, concept satisfiability, in the basic description logic ALC is PSpace-complete, and it is ExpTime-complete in the presence of general concept inclusions. Several fragments of ALC, notably logics in the FL, EL, and DL-Lite families, have an easier satisfiability problem; for some of these logics, satisfiability can be decided in polynomial time. We classify the complexity of the standard variants of the satisfiability problem for all possible Boolean and quantifier fragments of ALC with and without general concept inclusions.

MFCS Conference 2013 Conference Paper

Paradigms for Parameterized Enumeration

  • Nadia Creignou
  • Arne Meier
  • Julian-Steffen Müller
  • Johannes Schmidt 0001
  • Heribert Vollmer

Abstract The aim of the paper is to examine the computational complexity and algorithmics of enumeration, the task to output all solutions of a given problem, from the point of view of parameterized complexity. First we define formally different notions of efficient enumeration in the context of parameterized complexity. Second we show how different algorithmic paradigms can be used in order to get parameter-efficient enumeration algorithms in a number of examples. These paradigms use well-known principles from the design of parameterized decision as well as enumeration techniques, like for instance kernelization and self-reducibility. The concept of kernelization, in particular, leads to a characterization of fixed-parameter tractable enumeration problems.

SAT Conference 2010 Conference Paper

Proof Complexity of Propositional Default Logic

  • Olaf Beyersdorff
  • Arne Meier
  • Sebastian Müller 0003
  • Michael Thomas 0001
  • Heribert Vollmer

Abstract Default logic is one of the most popular and successful formalisms for non-monotonic reasoning. In 2002, Bonatti and Olivetti introduced several sequent calculi for credulous and skeptical reasoning in propositional default logic. In this paper we examine these calculi from a proof-complexity perspective. In particular, we show that the calculus for credulous reasoning obeys almost the same bounds on the proof size as Gentzen’s system LK. Hence proving lower bounds for credulous reasoning will be as hard as proving lower bounds for LK. On the other hand, we show an exponential lower bound to the proof size in Bonatti and Olivetti’s enhanced calculus for skeptical default reasoning.

TIME Conference 2009 Conference Paper

Model Checking CTL is Almost Always Inherently Sequential

  • Olaf Beyersdorff
  • Arne Meier
  • Michael Thomas 0001
  • Heribert Vollmer
  • Martin Mundhenk
  • Thomas Schneider 0002

The model checking problem for CTL is known to be P-complete (Clarke, Emerson, and Sistla (1986), see Schnoebelen (2002)). We consider fragments of CTL obtained by restricting the use of temporal modalities or the use of negations---restrictions already studied for LTL by Sistla and Clarke (1985) and Markey (2004). For all these fragments, except for the trivial case without any temporal operator, we systematically prove model checking to be either inherently sequential (P-complete) or very efficiently parallelizable (LOGCFL-complete). For most fragments, however, model checking for CTL is already P-complete. Hence our results indicate that in most applications, approaching CTL model checking by parallelism will not result in the desired speed up. We also completely determine the complexity of the model checking problem for all fragments of the extensions ECTL, CTL+, and ECTL+.

SAT Conference 2009 Conference Paper

The Complexity of Reasoning for Fragments of Default Logic

  • Olaf Beyersdorff
  • Arne Meier
  • Michael Thomas 0001
  • Heribert Vollmer

Abstract Default logic was introduced by Reiter in 1980. In 1992, Gottlob classified the complexity of the extension existence problem for propositional default logic as \(\Sigma^{\rm P}_2\) -complete, and the complexity of the credulous and skeptical reasoning problem as \(\Sigma^{\rm P}_2\) -complete, resp. \(\Pi^{\rm P}_2\) -complete. Additionally, he investigated restrictions on the default rules, i. e. , semi-normal default rules. Selman made in 1992 a similar approach with disjunction-free and unary default rules. In this paper we systematically restrict the set of allowed propositional connectives. We give a complete complexity classification for all sets of Boolean functions in the meaning of Post’s lattice for all three common decision problems for propositional default logic. We show that the complexity is a trichotomy ( \(\Sigma^{\rm P}_2\) -, NP-complete, trivial) for the extension existence problem, whereas for the credulous and sceptical reasoning problem we get a finer classification down to NL-complete cases.

MFCS Conference 2009 Conference Paper

The Complexity of Satisfiability for Fragments of Hybrid Logic-Part I

  • Arne Meier
  • Martin Mundhenk
  • Thomas Schneider 0002
  • Michael Thomas 0001
  • Volker Weber
  • Felix Weiss

Abstract The satisfiability problem of hybrid logics with the downarrow binder is known to be undecidable. This initiated a research program on decidable and tractable fragments. In this paper, we investigate the effect of restricting the propositional part of the language on decidability and on the complexity of the satisfiability problem over arbitrary, transitive, total frames, and frames based on equivalence relations. We also consider different sets of modal and hybrid operators. We trace the border of decidability and give the precise complexity of most fragments, in particular for all fragments including negation. For the monotone fragments, we are able to distinguish the easy from the hard cases, depending on the allowed set of operators.

v2026.09.13