16,938 research outputs found
Complexity of Non-Monotonic Logics
Over the past few decades, non-monotonic reasoning has developed to be one of
the most important topics in computational logic and artificial intelligence.
Different ways to introduce non-monotonic aspects to classical logic have been
considered, e.g., extension with default rules, extension with modal belief
operators, or modification of the semantics. In this survey we consider a
logical formalism from each of the above possibilities, namely Reiter's default
logic, Moore's autoepistemic logic and McCarthy's circumscription.
Additionally, we consider abduction, where one is not interested in inferences
from a given knowledge base but in computing possible explanations for an
observation with respect to a given knowledge base.
Complexity results for different reasoning tasks for propositional variants
of these logics have been studied already in the nineties. In recent years,
however, a renewed interest in complexity issues can be observed. One current
focal approach is to consider parameterized problems and identify reasonable
parameters that allow for FPT algorithms. In another approach, the emphasis
lies on identifying fragments, i.e., restriction of the logical language, that
allow more efficient algorithms for the most important reasoning tasks. In this
survey we focus on this second aspect. We describe complexity results for
fragments of logical languages obtained by either restricting the allowed set
of operators (e.g., forbidding negations one might consider only monotone
formulae) or by considering only formulae in conjunctive normal form but with
generalized clause types.
The algorithmic problems we consider are suitable variants of satisfiability
and implication in each of the logics, but also counting problems, where one is
not only interested in the existence of certain objects (e.g., models of a
formula) but asks for their number.Comment: To appear in Bulletin of the EATC
Abduction in Well-Founded Semantics and Generalized Stable Models
Abductive logic programming offers a formalism to declaratively express and
solve problems in areas such as diagnosis, planning, belief revision and
hypothetical reasoning. Tabled logic programming offers a computational
mechanism that provides a level of declarativity superior to that of Prolog,
and which has supported successful applications in fields such as parsing,
program analysis, and model checking. In this paper we show how to use tabled
logic programming to evaluate queries to abductive frameworks with integrity
constraints when these frameworks contain both default and explicit negation.
The result is the ability to compute abduction over well-founded semantics with
explicit negation and answer sets. Our approach consists of a transformation
and an evaluation method. The transformation adjoins to each objective literal
in a program, an objective literal along with rules that ensure
that will be true if and only if is false. We call the resulting
program a {\em dual} program. The evaluation method, \wfsmeth, then operates on
the dual program. \wfsmeth{} is sound and complete for evaluating queries to
abductive frameworks whose entailment method is based on either the
well-founded semantics with explicit negation, or on answer sets. Further,
\wfsmeth{} is asymptotically as efficient as any known method for either class
of problems. In addition, when abduction is not desired, \wfsmeth{} operating
on a dual program provides a novel tabling method for evaluating queries to
ground extended programs whose complexity and termination properties are
similar to those of the best tabling methods for the well-founded semantics. A
publicly available meta-interpreter has been developed for \wfsmeth{} using the
XSB system.Comment: 48 pages; To appear in Theory and Practice in Logic Programmin
Query-Answer Causality in Databases: Abductive Diagnosis and View-Updates
Causality has been recently introduced in databases, to model, characterize
and possibly compute causes for query results (answers). Connections between
query causality and consistency-based diagnosis and database repairs (wrt.
integrity constrain violations) have been established in the literature. In
this work we establish connections between query causality and abductive
diagnosis and the view-update problem. The unveiled relationships allow us to
obtain new complexity results for query causality -the main focus of our work-
and also for the two other areas.Comment: To appear in Proc. UAI Causal Inference Workshop, 2015. One example
was fixe
Semantic Matchmaking as Non-Monotonic Reasoning: A Description Logic Approach
Matchmaking arises when supply and demand meet in an electronic marketplace,
or when agents search for a web service to perform some task, or even when
recruiting agencies match curricula and job profiles. In such open
environments, the objective of a matchmaking process is to discover best
available offers to a given request. We address the problem of matchmaking from
a knowledge representation perspective, with a formalization based on
Description Logics. We devise Concept Abduction and Concept Contraction as
non-monotonic inferences in Description Logics suitable for modeling
matchmaking in a logical framework, and prove some related complexity results.
We also present reasonable algorithms for semantic matchmaking based on the
devised inferences, and prove that they obey to some commonsense properties.
Finally, we report on the implementation of the proposed matchmaking framework,
which has been used both as a mediator in e-marketplaces and for semantic web
services discovery
- …