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

Propositional semantics for default logic

We present new semantics for propositional default logic based on the notion of meta-interpretations - truth functions that assign truth values to clauses rather than letters. This leads to a propositional characterization of default theories: for each such finite theory, we show a classical propositional theory such that there is a one-to-one correspondence between models for the latter and extensions of the former. This means that computing an extension and answering questions about coherence, set-membership, and set-entailment are reducible to propositional satisfiability. The general transformation is exponential but tractable for a subset which we call 2-DT which is a superset of network default theories and disjunction-free default theories. This leads to the observation that coherence and membership for the class 2-DT is NP-complete and entailment is co-NP-complete.Since propositional satisfiability can be regarded as a constraint satisfaction problem (CSP), this work also paves the way for applying CSP techniques to default reasoning. In particular, we use the taxonomy of tractable CSP to identify new tractable subsets for Reiter's default logic. Our procedures allow also for computing stable models of extended logic programs

Towards efficient default reasoning

A decision method for Reiter's default logic is developed. It can determine whether a default theory has an extension, whether a formula is in some extension of a default theory and whether a formula is in every extension of a default theory. The method handles full propositional default logic. It can be implemented to work in polynomial space and by using only a theorem prover for the underlying propositional logic as a subroutine. The method divides default reasoning into two major subtasks: the search task of examining every alternative for extensions, which is solved by backtracking search, and the classical reasoning task, which can be implemented by a theorem prover for the underlying classical logic. Special emphasis is given to the search problem. The decision method employs a new compact representation of extensions which reduces the search space. Efficient techniques for pruning the search space further are developed