630 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
Do Hard SAT-Related Reasoning Tasks Become Easier in the Krom Fragment?
Many reasoning problems are based on the problem of satisfiability (SAT).
While SAT itself becomes easy when restricting the structure of the formulas in
a certain way, the situation is more opaque for more involved decision
problems. We consider here the CardMinSat problem which asks, given a
propositional formula and an atom , whether is true in some
cardinality-minimal model of . This problem is easy for the Horn
fragment, but, as we will show in this paper, remains -complete (and
thus -hard) for the Krom fragment (which is given by formulas in
CNF where clauses have at most two literals). We will make use of this fact to
study the complexity of reasoning tasks in belief revision and logic-based
abduction and show that, while in some cases the restriction to Krom formulas
leads to a decrease of complexity, in others it does not. We thus also consider
the CardMinSat problem with respect to additional restrictions to Krom formulas
towards a better understanding of the tractability frontier of such problems
The Complexity of Reasoning for Fragments of Autoepistemic Logic
Autoepistemic logic extends propositional logic by the modal operator L. A
formula that is preceded by an L is said to be "believed". The logic was
introduced by Moore 1985 for modeling an ideally rational agent's behavior and
reasoning about his own beliefs. In this paper we analyze all Boolean fragments
of autoepistemic logic with respect to the computational complexity of the
three most common decision problems expansion existence, brave reasoning and
cautious reasoning. As a second contribution we classify the computational
complexity of counting the number of stable expansions of a given knowledge
base. To the best of our knowledge this is the first paper analyzing the
counting problem for autoepistemic logic
On the Complexity of Finding Second-Best Abductive Explanations
While looking for abductive explanations of a given set of manifestations, an
ordering between possible solutions is often assumed. The complexity of
finding/verifying optimal solutions is already known. In this paper we consider
the computational complexity of finding second-best solutions. We consider
different orderings, and consider also different possible definitions of what a
second-best solution is
Abduction-Based Explanations for Machine Learning Models
The growing range of applications of Machine Learning (ML) in a multitude of
settings motivates the ability of computing small explanations for predictions
made. Small explanations are generally accepted as easier for human decision
makers to understand. Most earlier work on computing explanations is based on
heuristic approaches, providing no guarantees of quality, in terms of how close
such solutions are from cardinality- or subset-minimal explanations. This paper
develops a constraint-agnostic solution for computing explanations for any ML
model. The proposed solution exploits abductive reasoning, and imposes the
requirement that the ML model can be represented as sets of constraints using
some target constraint reasoning system for which the decision problem can be
answered with some oracle. The experimental results, obtained on well-known
datasets, validate the scalability of the proposed approach as well as the
quality of the computed solutions
- …