666 research outputs found

    Complexity Results for Modal Dependence Logic

    Get PDF
    Modal dependence logic was introduced recently by V\"a\"an\"anen. It enhances the basic modal language by an operator =(). For propositional variables p_1,...,p_n, =(p_1,...,p_(n-1);p_n) intuitively states that the value of p_n is determined by those of p_1,...,p_(n-1). Sevenster (J. Logic and Computation, 2009) showed that satisfiability for modal dependence logic is complete for nondeterministic exponential time. In this paper we consider fragments of modal dependence logic obtained by restricting the set of allowed propositional connectives. We show that satisfibility for poor man's dependence logic, the language consisting of formulas built from literals and dependence atoms using conjunction, necessity and possibility (i.e., disallowing disjunction), remains NEXPTIME-complete. If we only allow monotone formulas (without negation, but with disjunction), the complexity drops to PSPACE-completeness. We also extend V\"a\"an\"anen's language by allowing classical disjunction besides dependence disjunction and show that the satisfiability problem remains NEXPTIME-complete. If we then disallow both negation and dependence disjunction, satistiability is complete for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. In this way we completely classify the computational complexity of the satisfiability problem for all restrictions of propositional and dependence operators considered by V\"a\"an\"anen and Sevenster.Comment: 22 pages, full version of CSL 2010 pape

    Minimization for Generalized Boolean Formulas

    Full text link
    The minimization problem for propositional formulas is an important optimization problem in the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. In general, the problem is Sigma-2-complete under Turing reductions, but restricted versions are tractable. We study the complexity of minimization for formulas in two established frameworks for restricted propositional logic: The Post framework allowing arbitrarily nested formulas over a set of Boolean connectors, and the constraint setting, allowing generalizations of CNF formulas. In the Post case, we obtain a dichotomy result: Minimization is solvable in polynomial time or coNP-hard. This result also applies to Boolean circuits. For CNF formulas, we obtain new minimization algorithms for a large class of formulas, and give strong evidence that we have covered all polynomial-time cases

    A Fine-Grained Hierarchy of Hard Problems in the Separated Fragment

    Get PDF
    Recently, the separated fragment (SF) has been introduced and proved to be decidable. Its defining principle is that universally and existentially quantified variables may not occur together in atoms. The known upper bound on the time required to decide SF's satisfiability problem is formulated in terms of quantifier alternations: Given an SF sentence ∃z⃗∀x⃗1∃y⃗1…∀x⃗n∃y⃗n.ψ\exists \vec{z} \forall \vec{x}_1 \exists \vec{y}_1 \ldots \forall \vec{x}_n \exists \vec{y}_n . \psi in which ψ\psi is quantifier free, satisfiability can be decided in nondeterministic nn-fold exponential time. In the present paper, we conduct a more fine-grained analysis of the complexity of SF-satisfiability. We derive an upper and a lower bound in terms of the degree of interaction of existential variables (short: degree)}---a novel measure of how many separate existential quantifier blocks in a sentence are connected via joint occurrences of variables in atoms. Our main result is the kk-NEXPTIME-completeness of the satisfiability problem for the set SF≤kSF_{\leq k} of all SF sentences that have degree kk or smaller. Consequently, we show that SF-satisfiability is non-elementary in general, since SF is defined without restrictions on the degree. Beyond trivial lower bounds, nothing has been known about the hardness of SF-satisfiability so far.Comment: Full version of the LICS 2017 extended abstract having the same title, 38 page

    Generalising unit-refutation completeness and SLUR via nested input resolution

    Get PDF
    We introduce two hierarchies of clause-sets, SLUR_k and UC_k, based on the classes SLUR (Single Lookahead Unit Refutation), introduced in 1995, and UC (Unit refutation Complete), introduced in 1994. The class SLUR, introduced in [Annexstein et al, 1995], is the class of clause-sets for which unit-clause-propagation (denoted by r_1) detects unsatisfiability, or where otherwise iterative assignment, avoiding obviously false assignments by look-ahead, always yields a satisfying assignment. It is natural to consider how to form a hierarchy based on SLUR. Such investigations were started in [Cepek et al, 2012] and [Balyo et al, 2012]. We present what we consider the "limit hierarchy" SLUR_k, based on generalising r_1 by r_k, that is, using generalised unit-clause-propagation introduced in [Kullmann, 1999, 2004]. The class UC, studied in [Del Val, 1994], is the class of Unit refutation Complete clause-sets, that is, those clause-sets for which unsatisfiability is decidable by r_1 under any falsifying assignment. For unsatisfiable clause-sets F, the minimum k such that r_k determines unsatisfiability of F is exactly the "hardness" of F, as introduced in [Ku 99, 04]. For satisfiable F we use now an extension mentioned in [Ansotegui et al, 2008]: The hardness is the minimum k such that after application of any falsifying partial assignments, r_k determines unsatisfiability. The class UC_k is given by the clause-sets which have hardness <= k. We observe that UC_1 is exactly UC. UC_k has a proof-theoretic character, due to the relations between hardness and tree-resolution, while SLUR_k has an algorithmic character. The correspondence between r_k and k-times nested input resolution (or tree resolution using clause-space k+1) means that r_k has a dual nature: both algorithmic and proof theoretic. This corresponds to a basic result of this paper, namely SLUR_k = UC_k.Comment: 41 pages; second version improved formulations and added examples, and more details regarding future directions, third version further examples, improved and extended explanations, and more on SLUR, fourth version various additional remarks and editorial improvements, fifth version more explanations and references, typos corrected, improved wordin

    On SAT representations of XOR constraints

    Full text link
    We study the representation of systems S of linear equations over the two-element field (aka xor- or parity-constraints) via conjunctive normal forms F (boolean clause-sets). First we consider the problem of finding an "arc-consistent" representation ("AC"), meaning that unit-clause propagation will fix all forced assignments for all possible instantiations of the xor-variables. Our main negative result is that there is no polysize AC-representation in general. On the positive side we show that finding such an AC-representation is fixed-parameter tractable (fpt) in the number of equations. Then we turn to a stronger criterion of representation, namely propagation completeness ("PC") --- while AC only covers the variables of S, now all the variables in F (the variables in S plus auxiliary variables) are considered for PC. We show that the standard translation actually yields a PC representation for one equation, but fails so for two equations (in fact arbitrarily badly). We show that with a more intelligent translation we can also easily compute a translation to PC for two equations. We conjecture that computing a representation in PC is fpt in the number of equations.Comment: 39 pages; 2nd v. improved handling of acyclic systems, free-standing proof of the transformation from AC-representations to monotone circuits, improved wording and literature review; 3rd v. updated literature, strengthened treatment of monotonisation, improved discussions; 4th v. update of literature, discussions and formulations, more details and examples; conference v. to appear LATA 201

    The Complexity of Reasoning for Fragments of Autoepistemic Logic

    Get PDF
    Autoepistemic logic extends propositional logic by the modal operator L. A formula that is preceded by an L is said to be "believed". The logic was introduced by Moore 1985 for modeling an ideally rational agent's behavior and reasoning about his own beliefs. In this paper we analyze all Boolean fragments of autoepistemic logic with respect to the computational complexity of the three most common decision problems expansion existence, brave reasoning and cautious reasoning. As a second contribution we classify the computational complexity of counting the number of stable expansions of a given knowledge base. To the best of our knowledge this is the first paper analyzing the counting problem for autoepistemic logic
    • …
    corecore