In order to automatically infer the resource consumption of programs, analyzers track how data sizes change along program’s execution. Typically, analyzers measure the sizes of data by applying norms which are mappings from data to natural numbers that represent the sizes of the corresponding data. When norms are defined by taking type information into account, they are named typed-norms. This article presents a transformational approach to resource analysis with typed-norms that are inferred by a data-flow analysis. The analysis is based on a transformation of the program into an intermediate abstract program in which each variable is abstracted with respect to all considered norms which are valid for its type. We also present the data-flow analysis to automatically infer the required, useful, typed-norms from programs. Our analysis is formalized on a simple rule-based representation to which programs written in different programming paradigms (e.g., functional, logic, and imperative) can be automatically translated. Experimental results on standard benchmarks used by other type-based analyzers show that our approach is both efficient and accurate in practice.

This paper formally compares some central notions from two well-known formalisms for rule-based argumentation, DeLP and ASPIC+. The comparisons especially focus on intuitive adequacy and inter-translatability, consistency, and closure properties. As for differences in the definitions of arguments and attack, it turns out that DeLP’s definitions are intuitively appealing but that they may not fully comply with Caminada and Amgoud’s rationality postulates of strict closure and indirect consistency. For some special cases, the DeLP definitions are shown to fare better than ASPIC+. Next, it is argued that there are reasons to consider a variant of DeLP with grounded semantics, since in some examples its current notion of warrant arguably has counterintuitive consequences and may lead to sets of warranted arguments that are not admissible. Finally, under some minimality and consistency assumptions on ASPIC+ arguments, a one-to-many correspondence between ASPIC+ arguments and DeLP arguments is identified in such a way that if the DeLP warranting procedure is changed to grounded semantics, then ’s DeLP notion of warrant and ASPIC+ ’s notion of justification are equivalent. This result is proven for three alternative definitions of attack.

Powerful formalisms for abstract argumentation have been proposed, among them abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) that allow for a succinct and flexible specification of the relationship between arguments and the GRAPPA framework which allows argumentation scenarios to be represented as arbitrary edge-labeled graphs. The complexity of ADFs and GRAPPA is located beyond NP and ranges up to the third level of the polynomial hierarchy. The combined complexity of Answer Set Programming (ASP) exactly matches this complexity when programs are restricted to predicates of bounded arity. In this paper, we exploit this coincidence and present novel efficient translations from ADFs and GRAPPA to ASP. More specifically, we provide reductions for the five main ADF semantics of admissible, complete, preferred, grounded, and stable interpretations, and exemplify how these reductions need to be adapted for GRAPPA for the admissible, complete, and preferred semantics.