27,414 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
Reasoning about Minimal Belief and Negation as Failure
We investigate the problem of reasoning in the propositional fragment of
MBNF, the logic of minimal belief and negation as failure introduced by
Lifschitz, which can be considered as a unifying framework for several
nonmonotonic formalisms, including default logic, autoepistemic logic,
circumscription, epistemic queries, and logic programming. We characterize the
complexity and provide algorithms for reasoning in propositional MBNF. In
particular, we show that entailment in propositional MBNF lies at the third
level of the polynomial hierarchy, hence it is harder than reasoning in all the
above mentioned propositional formalisms for nonmonotonic reasoning. We also
prove the exact correspondence between negation as failure in MBNF and negative
introspection in Moore's autoepistemic logic
A Goal-Directed Implementation of Query Answering for Hybrid MKNF Knowledge Bases
Ontologies and rules are usually loosely coupled in knowledge representation
formalisms. In fact, ontologies use open-world reasoning while the leading
semantics for rules use non-monotonic, closed-world reasoning. One exception is
the tightly-coupled framework of Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure
(MKNF), which allows statements about individuals to be jointly derived via
entailment from an ontology and inferences from rules. Nonetheless, the
practical usefulness of MKNF has not always been clear, although recent work
has formalized a general resolution-based method for querying MKNF when rules
are taken to have the well-founded semantics, and the ontology is modeled by a
general oracle. That work leaves open what algorithms should be used to relate
the entailments of the ontology and the inferences of rules. In this paper we
provide such algorithms, and describe the implementation of a query-driven
system, CDF-Rules, for hybrid knowledge bases combining both (non-monotonic)
rules under the well-founded semantics and a (monotonic) ontology, represented
by a CDF Type-1 (ALQ) theory. To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic
Programming (TPLP
Modal logics are coalgebraic
Applications of modal logics are abundant in computer science, and a large number of structurally different modal logics have been successfully employed in a diverse spectrum of application contexts. Coalgebraic semantics, on the other hand, provides a uniform and encompassing view on the large variety of specific logics used in particular domains. The coalgebraic approach is generic and compositional: tools and techniques simultaneously apply to a large class of application areas and can moreover be combined in a modular way. In particular, this facilitates a pick-and-choose approach to domain specific formalisms, applicable across the entire scope of application areas, leading to generic software tools that are easier to design, to implement, and to maintain. This paper substantiates the authors' firm belief that the systematic exploitation of the coalgebraic nature of modal logic will not only have impact on the field of modal logic itself but also lead to significant progress in a number of areas within computer science, such as knowledge representation and concurrency/mobility
Generic Modal Cut Elimination Applied to Conditional Logics
We develop a general criterion for cut elimination in sequent calculi for
propositional modal logics, which rests on absorption of cut, contraction,
weakening and inversion by the purely modal part of the rule system. Our
criterion applies also to a wide variety of logics outside the realm of normal
modal logic. We give extensive example instantiations of our framework to
various conditional logics. For these, we obtain fully internalised calculi
which are substantially simpler than those known in the literature, along with
leaner proofs of cut elimination and complexity. In one case, conditional logic
with modus ponens and conditional excluded middle, cut elimination and
complexity were explicitly stated as open in the literature
Designing Normative Theories for Ethical and Legal Reasoning: LogiKEy Framework, Methodology, and Tool Support
A framework and methodology---termed LogiKEy---for the design and engineering
of ethical reasoners, normative theories and deontic logics is presented. The
overall motivation is the development of suitable means for the control and
governance of intelligent autonomous systems. LogiKEy's unifying formal
framework is based on semantical embeddings of deontic logics, logic
combinations and ethico-legal domain theories in expressive classic
higher-order logic (HOL). This meta-logical approach enables the provision of
powerful tool support in LogiKEy: off-the-shelf theorem provers and model
finders for HOL are assisting the LogiKEy designer of ethical intelligent
agents to flexibly experiment with underlying logics and their combinations,
with ethico-legal domain theories, and with concrete examples---all at the same
time. Continuous improvements of these off-the-shelf provers, without further
ado, leverage the reasoning performance in LogiKEy. Case studies, in which the
LogiKEy framework and methodology has been applied and tested, give evidence
that HOL's undecidability often does not hinder efficient experimentation.Comment: 50 pages; 10 figure
- …