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

A beginner's guide to belief revision and truth maintenance systems

This brief note is intended to familiarize the non-TMS audience with some of the basic ideas surrounding classic TMS's (truth maintenance systems), namely the justification-based TMS and the assumption-based TMS. Topics of further interest include the relation between non-monotonic logics and TMS's, efficiency and search issues, complexity concerns, as well as the variety of TMS systems that have surfaced in the past decade or so. These include probabilistic-based TMS systems, fuzzy TMS systems, tri-valued belief systems, and so on

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

Preferential Multi-Context Systems

Multi-context systems (MCS) presented by Brewka and Eiter can be considered as a promising way to interlink decentralized and heterogeneous knowledge contexts. In this paper, we propose preferential multi-context systems (PMCS), which provide a framework for incorporating a total preorder relation over contexts in a multi-context system. In a given PMCS, its contexts are divided into several parts according to the total preorder relation over them, moreover, only information flows from a context to ones of the same part or less preferred parts are allowed to occur. As such, the first $l$ preferred parts of an PMCS always fully capture the information exchange between contexts of these parts, and then compose another meaningful PMCS, termed the $l$-section of that PMCS. We generalize the equilibrium semantics for an MCS to the (maximal) $l_{\leq}$-equilibrium which represents belief states at least acceptable for the $l$-section of an PMCS. We also investigate inconsistency analysis in PMCS and related computational complexity issues

A flexible framework for defeasible logics

Logics for knowledge representation suffer from over-specialization: while each logic may provide an ideal representation formalism for some problems, it is less than optimal for others. A solution to this problem is to choose from several logics and, when necessary, combine the representations. In general, such an approach results in a very difficult problem of combination. However, if we can choose the logics from a uniform framework then the problem of combining them is greatly simplified. In this paper, we develop such a framework for defeasible logics. It supports all defeasible logics that satisfy a strong negation principle. We use logic meta-programs as the basis for the framework.Comment: Proceedings of 8th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, April 9-11, 2000, Breckenridge, Colorad

Expressive Non-Monotonic Description Logics Based on Circumscription

Recent applications of description logics (DLs) strongly suggest the integration of non-monotonic features into DLs, with particular attention to defeasible inheritance. However, the existing non-monotonic extensions of DLs are usually based on default logic or autoepistemic logic, and have to be seriously restricted in expressive power to preserve the decidability of reasoning. In particular, such DLs allow the modelling of defeasible inheritance only in a very restricted form, where non-monotonic reasoning is limited to individuals that are explicitly identified by constants in the knowledge base. In this paper, we consider non-monotonic extensions of expressive DLs based on circumscription. We prove that reasoning in such DLs is decidable even without the usual, strong restrictions in expressive power. We pinpoint the exact computational complexity of reasoning as complete for NPNEXP and NEXPNP, depending on whether or not the number of minimized and fixed predicates is assumed to be bounded by a constant. These results assume that only concept names (and no role names) can be minimized and fixed during minimization. On the other hand, we show that fixing role names during minimization makes reasoning undecidable