Researcher profile

Johannes K. Fichte

Johannes K. Fichte contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Diversity of Extensions in Abstract Argumentation

Argumentation is an important topic of AI for modelling and reasoning about arguments. In abstract argumentation, we consider directed graphs, so-called argumentation frameworks (AF), that express conflicts between arguments. The semantics is defined by the notion of extensions, which are sets of arguments that satisfy particular relationship conditions in the AF. Usually, standard reasoning in argumentation do not reveal how far apart extensions are. We introduce a quantitative notion of diversity of extensions based on the symmetric difference and provide a systematic complexity classification. Intuitively, diversity captures whether extensions of a framework (accepted viewpoints) differ only marginally or represent fundamentally incompatible sets of arguments. We study whether an AF admits k-diverse extensions, admits k-diverse extensions covering specific arguments, and to compute the largest k for which an AF admits k-diverse extensions. We outline a prototype and provide an evaluation for computing diversity levels.

preprint2025arXiv

Complexity of Faceted Explanations in Propositional Abduction

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.

preprint2022arXiv

A Quantitative Symbolic Approach to Individual Human Reasoning

Cognitive theories for reasoning are about understanding how humans come to conclusions from a set of premises. Starting from hypothetical thoughts, we are interested which are the implications behind basic everyday language and how do we reason with them. A widely studied topic is whether cognitive theories can account for typical reasoning tasks and be confirmed by own empirical experiments. This paper takes a different view and we do not propose a theory, but instead take findings from the literature and show how these, formalized as cognitive principles within a logical framework, can establish a quantitative notion of reasoning, which we call plausibility. For this purpose, we employ techniques from non-monotonic reasoning and computer science, namely, a solving paradigm called answer set programming (ASP). Finally, we can fruitfully use plausibility reasoning in ASP to test the effects of an existing experiment and explain different majority responses.

preprint2020arXiv

Towards Faster Reasoners By Using Transparent Huge Pages

Various state-of-the-art automated reasoning (AR) tools are widely used as backend tools in research of knowledge representation and reasoning as well as in industrial applications. In testing and verification, those tools often run continuously or nightly. In this work, we present an approach to reduce the runtime of AR tools by 10% on average and up to 20% for long running tasks. Our improvement addresses the high memory usage that comes with the data structures used in AR tools, which are based on conflict driven no-good learning. We establish a general way to enable faster memory access by using the memory cache line of modern hardware more effectively. Therefore, we extend the standard C library (glibc) by dynamically allowing to use a memory management feature called huge pages. Huge pages allow to reduce the overhead that is required to translate memory addresses between the virtual memory of the operating system and the physical memory of the hardware. In that way, we can reduce runtime, costs, and energy consumption of AR tools and applications with similar memory access patterns simply by linking the tool against this new glibc library when compiling it. In every day industrial applications this easily allows to be more eco-friendly in computation. To back up the claimed speed-up, we present experimental results for tools that are commonly used in the AR community, including the domains ASP, BMC, MaxSAT, SAT, and SMT.