17,712 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
Redundancy in Logic III: Non-Mononotonic Reasoning
Results about the redundancy of circumscriptive and default theories are
presented. In particular, the complexity of establishing whether a given theory
is redundant is establihsed.Comment: minor correction
Counting Complexity for Reasoning in Abstract Argumentation
In this paper, we consider counting and projected model counting of
extensions in abstract argumentation for various semantics. When asking for
projected counts we are interested in counting the number of extensions of a
given argumentation framework while multiple extensions that are identical when
restricted to the projected arguments count as only one projected extension. We
establish classical complexity results and parameterized complexity results
when the problems are parameterized by treewidth of the undirected
argumentation graph. To obtain upper bounds for counting projected extensions,
we introduce novel algorithms that exploit small treewidth of the undirected
argumentation graph of the input instance by dynamic programming (DP). Our
algorithms run in time double or triple exponential in the treewidth depending
on the considered semantics. Finally, we take the exponential time hypothesis
(ETH) into account and establish lower bounds of bounded treewidth algorithms
for counting extensions and projected extension.Comment: Extended version of a paper published at AAAI-1
Where Fail-Safe Default Logics Fail
Reiter's original definition of default logic allows for the application of a
default that contradicts a previously applied one. We call failure this
condition. The possibility of generating failures has been in the past
considered as a semantical problem, and variants have been proposed to solve
it. We show that it is instead a computational feature that is needed to encode
some domains into default logic
The Complexity of Reasoning for Fragments of Default Logic
Default logic was introduced by Reiter in 1980. In 1992, Gottlob classified
the complexity of the extension existence problem for propositional default
logic as \SigmaPtwo-complete, and the complexity of the credulous and
skeptical reasoning problem as SigmaP2-complete, resp. PiP2-complete.
Additionally, he investigated restrictions on the default rules, i.e.,
semi-normal default rules. Selman made in 1992 a similar approach with
disjunction-free and unary default rules. In this paper we systematically
restrict the set of allowed propositional connectives. We give a complete
complexity classification for all sets of Boolean functions in the meaning of
Post's lattice for all three common decision problems for propositional default
logic. We show that the complexity is a hexachotomy (SigmaP2-, DeltaP2-, NP-,
P-, NL-complete, trivial) for the extension existence problem, while for the
credulous and skeptical reasoning problem we obtain similar classifications
without trivial cases.Comment: Corrected versio
Space Efficiency of Propositional Knowledge Representation Formalisms
We investigate the space efficiency of a Propositional Knowledge
Representation (PKR) formalism. Intuitively, the space efficiency of a
formalism F in representing a certain piece of knowledge A, is the size of the
shortest formula of F that represents A. In this paper we assume that knowledge
is either a set of propositional interpretations (models) or a set of
propositional formulae (theorems). We provide a formal way of talking about the
relative ability of PKR formalisms to compactly represent a set of models or a
set of theorems. We introduce two new compactness measures, the corresponding
classes, and show that the relative space efficiency of a PKR formalism in
representing models/theorems is directly related to such classes. In
particular, we consider formalisms for nonmonotonic reasoning, such as
circumscription and default logic, as well as belief revision operators and the
stable model semantics for logic programs with negation. One interesting result
is that formalisms with the same time complexity do not necessarily belong to
the same space efficiency class
- …