1,312 research outputs found
Complexity of Prioritized Default Logics
In default reasoning, usually not all possible ways of resolving conflicts
between default rules are acceptable. Criteria expressing acceptable ways of
resolving the conflicts may be hardwired in the inference mechanism, for
example specificity in inheritance reasoning can be handled this way, or they
may be given abstractly as an ordering on the default rules. In this article we
investigate formalizations of the latter approach in Reiter's default logic.
Our goal is to analyze and compare the computational properties of three such
formalizations in terms of their computational complexity: the prioritized
default logics of Baader and Hollunder, and Brewka, and a prioritized default
logic that is based on lexicographic comparison. The analysis locates the
propositional variants of these logics on the second and third levels of the
polynomial hierarchy, and identifies the boundary between tractable and
intractable inference for restricted classes of prioritized default theories
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
Implementing Default and Autoepistemic Logics via the Logic of GK
The logic of knowledge and justified assumptions, also known as logic of
grounded knowledge (GK), was proposed by Lin and Shoham as a general logic for
nonmonotonic reasoning. To date, it has been used to embed in it default logic
(propositional case), autoepistemic logic, Turner's logic of universal
causation, and general logic programming under stable model semantics. Besides
showing the generality of GK as a logic for nonmonotonic reasoning, these
embeddings shed light on the relationships among these other logics. In this
paper, for the first time, we show how the logic of GK can be embedded into
disjunctive logic programming in a polynomial but non-modular translation with
new variables. The result can then be used to compute the extension/expansion
semantics of default logic, autoepistemic logic and Turner's logic of universal
causation by disjunctive ASP solvers such as claspD(-2), DLV, GNT and cmodels.Comment: Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic
Reasoning (NMR 2014
Backdoors to Normality for Disjunctive Logic Programs
Over the last two decades, propositional satisfiability (SAT) has become one
of the most successful and widely applied techniques for the solution of
NP-complete problems. The aim of this paper is to investigate theoretically how
Sat can be utilized for the efficient solution of problems that are harder than
NP or co-NP. In particular, we consider the fundamental reasoning problems in
propositional disjunctive answer set programming (ASP), Brave Reasoning and
Skeptical Reasoning, which ask whether a given atom is contained in at least
one or in all answer sets, respectively. Both problems are located at the
second level of the Polynomial Hierarchy and thus assumed to be harder than NP
or co-NP. One cannot transform these two reasoning problems into SAT in
polynomial time, unless the Polynomial Hierarchy collapses. We show that
certain structural aspects of disjunctive logic programs can be utilized to
break through this complexity barrier, using new techniques from Parameterized
Complexity. In particular, we exhibit transformations from Brave and Skeptical
Reasoning to SAT that run in time O(2^k n^2) where k is a structural parameter
of the instance and n the input size. In other words, the reduction is
fixed-parameter tractable for parameter k. As the parameter k we take the size
of a smallest backdoor with respect to the class of normal (i.e.,
disjunction-free) programs. Such a backdoor is a set of atoms that when deleted
makes the program normal. In consequence, the combinatorial explosion, which is
expected when transforming a problem from the second level of the Polynomial
Hierarchy to the first level, can now be confined to the parameter k, while the
running time of the reduction is polynomial in the input size n, where the
order of the polynomial is independent of k.Comment: A short version will appear in the Proceedings of the Proceedings of
the 27th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'13). A preliminary
version of the paper was presented on the workshop Answer Set Programming and
Other Computing Paradigms (ASPOCP 2012), 5th International Workshop,
September 4, 2012, Budapest, Hungar
- …