On the Role of Canonicity in Bottom-up Knowledge Compilation

We consider the problem of bottom-up compilation of knowledge bases, which is usually predicated on the existence of a polytime function for combining compilations using Boolean operators (usually called an Apply function). While such a polytime Apply function is known to exist for certain languages (e.g., OBDDs) and not exist for others (e.g., DNNF), its existence for certain languages remains unknown. Among the latter is the recently introduced language of Sentential Decision Diagrams (SDDs), for which a polytime Apply function exists for unreduced SDDs, but remains unknown for reduced ones (i.e. canonical SDDs). We resolve this open question in this paper and consider some of its theoretical and practical implications. Some of the findings we report question the common wisdom on the relationship between bottom-up compilation, language canonicity and the complexity of the Apply function

Complementary Lipschitz continuity results for the distribution of intersections or unions of independent random sets in finite discrete spaces

We prove that intersections and unions of independent random sets in finite spaces achieve a form of Lipschitz continuity. More precisely, given the distribution of a random set $\Xi$, the function mapping any random set distribution to the distribution of its intersection (under independence assumption) with $\Xi$ is Lipschitz continuous with unit Lipschitz constant if the space of random set distributions is endowed with a metric defined as the $L_k$ norm distance between inclusion functionals also known as commonalities. Moreover, the function mapping any random set distribution to the distribution of its union (under independence assumption) with $\Xi$ is Lipschitz continuous with unit Lipschitz constant if the space of random set distributions is endowed with a metric defined as the $L_k$ norm distance between hitting functionals also known as plausibilities. Using the epistemic random set interpretation of belief functions, we also discuss the ability of these distances to yield conflict measures. All the proofs in this paper are derived in the framework of Dempster-Shafer belief functions. Let alone the discussion on conflict measures, it is straightforward to transcribe the proofs into the general (non necessarily epistemic) random set terminology

To Preference via Entrenchment

We introduce a simple generalization of Gardenfors and Makinson's epistemic entrenchment called partial entrenchment. We show that preferential inference can be generated as the sceptical counterpart of an inference mechanism defined directly on partial entrenchment.Comment: 16 page