BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Yasir Mahmood

Yasir Mahmood contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceComputational ComplexityLogic in Computer ScienceDatabasesmath.LOSoftware Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
6topics
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

7 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

ABox Abduction for Inconsistent Knowledge Bases under Repair Semantics

Given a knowledge base (KB) with a non-entailed fact, the ABox abduction problem asks for possible extensions of the KB that would entail this fact. This problem has many applications, ranging from diagnosis to explainability and repair. ABox abduction has been well-investigated for consistent KBs and classical semantics, but little is known for the case of inconsistent KBs, which can be caused by erroneous data. In this paper we define suitable notions of abduction in this setting and propose criteria that guide abduction towards "useful" hypotheses. To regain meaningful reasoning in the presence of inconsistencies, we use well-established repair semantics. We provide a comprehensive landscape of the complexity of ABox abduction under repair semantics, treating different variants of the abduction problem for the light-weight description logics DL-Lite and EL_bot.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
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.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2026arXiv

Inconsistent Databases and Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks

The connection between subset-maximal repairs for inconsistent databases involving various integrity constraints and acceptable sets of arguments within argumentation frameworks has recently drawn growing interest. In this paper, we contribute to this domain by establishing a new connection when integrity constraints (ICs) include denial constraints and local-as-view tuple-generating dependencies. It turns out that SET-based Argumentation Frameworks (SETAFs), an extension of Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs) allowing collective attacks, are needed. It is known that subset-maximal repairs under denial constraints correspond to the naive extensions, which also coincide with the preferred and stable extensions in the resulting SETAFs. Our main findings establish that repairs under the considered fragment of tuple-generating dependencies correspond to the preferred extensions. Moreover, for these dependencies, additional preprocessing allows computing a unique extension that is stable and naive. Allowing both types of constraints breaks this relationship, and even the pre-processing does not help as only preferred semantics captures these repairs. Finally, while it is known that functional dependencies do not require set-based attacks, we prove the same regarding inclusion dependencies. Thus, one can translate inconsistent databases under these restricted classes of ICs to plain AFs with attacks only between arguments.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2026arXiv

Rethinking Explanations: Formalizing Contrast in Description Logics

There has been a growing interest in explaining entailments over description logic (DL) knowledge bases. The existing explanation formalisms focus on justifications to explain true axioms, and abductive reasoning to explain missing axioms in a knowledge base. However, these formalisms only point out the reasoning steps behind a (missing) entailment and lack a user-centered approach as they do not consider an inquirer's needs, level of understanding, or prior knowledge. We propose contrastive explanations, aiming at answering "why an axiom P (fact) is true instead of another axiom Q (foil)" over description logic knowledge bases. The motivation arises from the observation that when a user discovers that P has occurred, they are often surprised because they anticipated the occurrence of another similar event Q. Furthermore, individual explanations for "why P" and "why not Q" are unsatisfactory since a user expects to see the difference between P and Q. In this work, we first present formal foundations of contrasting questions and then define contrastive explanations within description logics. To this end, facts include ABox assertions of the form C(x) for a concept C and individual x. Possible foils for such facts are assertions C(y) (contrasting against an individual y), or D(x) (contrasting against a concept D). Additionally, we explore the properties of contrastive explanations in the DL EL and ALC. We also provide an implementation of our definition and an experimental evaluation on KBs of varying sizes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

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

Logic-based argumentation is a well-established formalism modelling 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, subset-minimal, 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 (Parson et al., J. Log. Comput., 2003) 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 (STOC 1978), and then study different parameterizations for each of the fragment. We identify a list of reasonable structural parameters (size of the claim, support, knowledge-base) 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).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Software Effort Estimation Accuracy Prediction of Machine Learning Techniques: A Systematic Performance Evaluation

Software effort estimation accuracy is a key factor in effective planning, controlling and to deliver a successful software project within budget and schedule. The overestimation and underestimation both are the key challenges for future software development, henceforth there is a continuous need for accuracy in software effort estimation (SEE). The researchers and practitioners are striving to identify which machine learning estimation technique gives more accurate results based on evaluation measures, datasets and the other relevant attributes. The authors of related research are generally not aware of previously published results of machine learning effort estimation techniques. The main aim of this study is to assist the researchers to know which machine learning technique yields the promising effort estimation accuracy prediction in the software development. In this paper, the performance of the machine learning ensemble technique is investigated with the solo technique based on two most commonly used accuracy evaluation metrics. We used the systematic literature review methodology proposed by Kitchenham and Charters. This includes searching for the most relevant papers, applying quality assessment criteria, extracting data and drawing results. We have evaluated a state-of-the-art accuracy performance of 28 selected studies (14 ensemble, 14 solo) using Mean Magnitude of Relative Error (MMRE) and PRED (25) as a set of reliable accuracy metrics for performance evaluation of accuracy among two techniques to report the research questions stated in this study. We found that machine learning techniques are the most frequently implemented in the construction of ensemble effort estimation (EEE) techniques. The results of this study revealed that the EEE techniques usually yield a promising estimation accuracy than the solo techniques.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Parametrised Complexity of Model Checking and Satisfiability in Propositional Dependence Logic

In this paper, we initiate a systematic study of the parametrised complexity in the field of Dependence Logics which finds its origin in the Dependence Logic of Väänänen from 2007. We study a propositional variant of this logic (PDL) and investigate a variety of parametrisations with respect to the central decision problems. The model checking problem (MC) of PDL is NP-complete. The subject of this research is to identify a list of parametrisations (formula-size, treewidth, treedepth, team-size, number of variables) under which MC becomes fixed-parameter tractable. Furthermore, we show that the number of disjunctions or the arity of dependence atoms (dep-arity) as a parameter both yield a paraNP-completeness result. Then, we consider the satisfiability problem (SAT) showing a different picture: under team-size, or dep-arity SAT is paraNP-complete whereas under all other mentioned parameters the problem is in FPT. Finally, we introduce a variant of the satisfiability problem, asking for teams of a given size, and show for this problem an almost complete picture.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access