Notice: This website is continuously updated as new conference proceedings and journal volumes are published. Consequently, the figures presented here may differ from those reported in our publications.
A brief overview of our methodology is provided on the Methods page, along with references to publications documenting our approach and links to the code and data used in each study.
The reproducibility variables underlying each score are classified using an automated LLM-based pipeline, validated against a manually labeled dataset. LLM-based classification introduces uncertainty and potential bias; scores should be interpreted as estimates.
If Nothing Is Accepted -- Repairing Argumentation Frameworks
Authors: Markus Ulbricht, Ringo Baumann
JAIR 2019 | Venue PDF | LLM Run Details | Input Tokens: 36,770 Total number of tokens sent to the LLM as input for this paper's analysis. | Output Tokens: 2,388 Total number of tokens produced by the LLM (including reasoning/thinking tokens) for this paper's analysis.
| Reproducibility Variable | Result | LLM Response |
|---|---|---|
| Research Type | Theoretical | In this article we provide a series of first results for these problems in the context of abstract argumentation theory regarding the two most important reasoning modes, namely credulous as well as sceptical acceptance. Our analysis includes the following problems regarding minimal repairs/diagnoses: existence, verification, computation of one and enumeration of all solutions. The latter problem is tackled with a version of the so-called hitting set duality first introduced by Raymond Reiter in 1987. It turns out that grounded semantics plays an outstanding role not only in terms of complexity, but also as a useful tool to reduce the search space for diagnoses regarding other semantics. Sections 3, 4, and 6 are dedicated to theoretical concepts, duality results, and computational complexity analysis respectively. |
| Researcher Affiliation | Academia | Ringo Baumann EMAIL Markus Ulbricht EMAIL Department of Computer Science, Leipzig University, Germany |
| Pseudocode | No | The paper describes algorithms and methods in prose, but does not contain any explicitly labeled pseudocode blocks or algorithms. |
| Open Source Code | No | The paper does not contain any explicit statements about releasing source code, nor does it provide links to any code repositories. |
| Open Datasets | No | The paper uses abstract examples (e.g., Example 1.1, 1.2, 3.1) to illustrate theoretical concepts, but it does not use or provide access to any publicly available datasets for empirical evaluation. |
| Dataset Splits | No | The paper is theoretical and does not involve experiments on datasets, therefore, there is no mention of dataset splits. |
| Hardware Specification | No | The paper focuses on theoretical analysis and computational complexity; it does not describe any experiments that would require specific hardware, so no hardware specifications are provided. |
| Software Dependencies | No | The paper focuses on theoretical concepts and algorithms, without describing a practical implementation. Therefore, no software dependencies with version numbers are mentioned. |
| Experiment Setup | No | The paper is theoretical and does not present experimental results from implementations. Consequently, there are no details regarding experimental setup, hyperparameters, or training configurations. |