The Good Old Davis-Putnam Procedure Helps Counting Models

As was shown recently, many important AI problems require counting the number of models of propositional formulas. The problem of counting models of such formulas is, according to present knowledge, computationally intractable in a worst case. Based on the Davis-Putnam procedure, we present an algorithm, CDP, that computes the exact number of models of a propositional CNF or DNF formula F. Let m and n be the number of clauses and variables of F, respectively, and let p denote the probability that a literal l of F occurs in a clause C of F, then the average running time of CDP is shown to be O(nm^d), where d=-1/log(1-p). The practical performance of CDP has been estimated in a series of experiments on a wide variety of CNF formulas

Stable Model Counting and Its Application in Probabilistic Logic Programming

Model counting is the problem of computing the number of models that satisfy a given propositional theory. It has recently been applied to solving inference tasks in probabilistic logic programming, where the goal is to compute the probability of given queries being true provided a set of mutually independent random variables, a model (a logic program) and some evidence. The core of solving this inference task involves translating the logic program to a propositional theory and using a model counter. In this paper, we show that for some problems that involve inductive definitions like reachability in a graph, the translation of logic programs to SAT can be expensive for the purpose of solving inference tasks. For such problems, direct implementation of stable model semantics allows for more efficient solving. We present two implementation techniques, based on unfounded set detection, that extend a propositional model counter to a stable model counter. Our experiments show that for particular problems, our approach can outperform a state-of-the-art probabilistic logic programming solver by several orders of magnitude in terms of running time and space requirements, and can solve instances of significantly larger sizes on which the current solver runs out of time or memory.Comment: Accepted in AAAI, 201

First-Order Decomposition Trees

Lifting attempts to speed up probabilistic inference by exploiting symmetries in the model. Exact lifted inference methods, like their propositional counterparts, work by recursively decomposing the model and the problem. In the propositional case, there exist formal structures, such as decomposition trees (dtrees), that represent such a decomposition and allow us to determine the complexity of inference a priori. However, there is currently no equivalent structure nor analogous complexity results for lifted inference. In this paper, we introduce FO-dtrees, which upgrade propositional dtrees to the first-order level. We show how these trees can characterize a lifted inference solution for a probabilistic logical model (in terms of a sequence of lifted operations), and make a theoretical analysis of the complexity of lifted inference in terms of the novel notion of lifted width for the tree

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

Model counting for reactive systems

Model counting is the problem of computing the number of solutions for a logical formula. In the last few years, it has been primarily studied for propositional logic, and has been shown to be useful in many applications. In planning, for example, propositional model counting has been used to compute the robustness of a plan in an incomplete domain. In information-flow control, model counting has been applied to measure the amount of information leaked by a security-critical system. In this thesis, we introduce the model counting problem for linear-time properties, and show its applications in formal verification. In the same way propositional model counting generalizes the satisfiability problem for propositional logic, counting models for linear-time properties generalizes the emptiness problem for languages over infinite words to one that asks for the number of words in a language. The model counting problem, thus, provides a foundation for quantitative extensions of model checking, where not only the existence of computations that violate the specification is determined, but also the number of such violations. We solve the model counting problem for the prominent class of omega-regular properties. We present algorithms for solving the problem for different classes of properties, and show the advantages of our algorithms in comparison to indirect approaches based on encodings into propositional logic. We further show how model counting can be used for solving a variety of quantitative problems in formal verification, including probabilistic model checking, quantitative information-flow in security-critical systems, and the synthesis of approximate implementations for reactive systems.Das Modellzählproblem fragt nach der Anzahl der Lösungen einer logischen Formel, und wurde in den letzten Jahren hauptsächlich für Aussagenlogik untersucht. Das Zählen von Modellen aussagenlogischer Formeln hat sich in vielen Anwendungen als nützlich erwiesen. Im Bereich der künstlichen Intelligenz wurde das Zählen von Modellen beispielsweise verwendet, um die Robustheit eines Plans in einem unvollständigen Weltmodell zu bewerten. Das Zählen von Modellen kann auch verwendet werden, um in sicherheitskritischen Systemen die Menge an enthüllten vertraulichen Daten zu messen. Diese Dissertation stellt das Modellzählproblem für Linearzeiteigenschaften vor, und untersucht dessen Rolle in der Welt der formalen Verifikation. Das Zählen von Modellen für Linearzeiteigenschaften führt zu neuen quantitativen Erweiterungen klassischer Verifikationsprobleme, bei denen nicht nur die Existenz eines Fehlers in einem System zu überprüfen ist, sondern auch die Anzahl solcher Fehler. Wir präsentieren Algorithmen zur Lösung des Modellzählproblems für verschiedene Klassen von Linearzeiteigenschaften und zeigen die Vorteile unserer Algorithmen im Vergleich zu indirekten Ansätzen, die auf Kodierungen der untersuchten Probleme in Aussagenlogik basieren. Darüberhinaus zeigen wir wie das Zählen von Modellen zur Lösung einer Vielzahl quantitativer Probleme in der formalen Verifikation verwendet werden kann. Dies beinhaltet unter anderem die Analyse probabilistischer Modelle, die Kontrolle quantitativen Informationsflusses in sicherheitskritischen Systemen, und die Synthese von approximativen Implementierungen für reaktive Systeme

Belief merging within fragments of propositional logic

Recently, belief change within the framework of fragments of propositional logic has gained increasing attention. Previous works focused on belief contraction and belief revision on the Horn fragment. However, the problem of belief merging within fragments of propositional logic has been neglected so far. This paper presents a general approach to define new merging operators derived from existing ones such that the result of merging remains in the fragment under consideration. Our approach is not limited to the case of Horn fragment but applicable to any fragment of propositional logic characterized by a closure property on the sets of models of its formulae. We study the logical properties of the proposed operators in terms of satisfaction of merging postulates, considering in particular distance-based merging operators for Horn and Krom fragments.Comment: To appear in the Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2014