2,853 research outputs found
Do Hard SAT-Related Reasoning Tasks Become Easier in the Krom Fragment?
Many reasoning problems are based on the problem of satisfiability (SAT).
While SAT itself becomes easy when restricting the structure of the formulas in
a certain way, the situation is more opaque for more involved decision
problems. We consider here the CardMinSat problem which asks, given a
propositional formula and an atom , whether is true in some
cardinality-minimal model of . This problem is easy for the Horn
fragment, but, as we will show in this paper, remains -complete (and
thus -hard) for the Krom fragment (which is given by formulas in
CNF where clauses have at most two literals). We will make use of this fact to
study the complexity of reasoning tasks in belief revision and logic-based
abduction and show that, while in some cases the restriction to Krom formulas
leads to a decrease of complexity, in others it does not. We thus also consider
the CardMinSat problem with respect to additional restrictions to Krom formulas
towards a better understanding of the tractability frontier of such problems
Complexity Classifications for logic-based Argumentation
We consider logic-based argumentation in which an argument is a pair (Fi,al),
where the support Fi is a minimal consistent set of formulae taken from a given
knowledge base (usually denoted by De) that entails the claim al (a formula).
We study the complexity of three central problems in argumentation: the
existence of a support Fi ss De, the validity of a support and the relevance
problem (given psi is there a support Fi such that psi ss Fi?). When arguments
are given in the full language of propositional logic these problems are
computationally costly tasks, the validity problem is DP-complete, the others
are SigP2-complete. We study these problems in Schaefer's famous framework
where the considered propositional formulae are in generalized conjunctive
normal form. This means that formulae are conjunctions of constraints build
upon a fixed finite set of Boolean relations Ga (the constraint language). We
show that according to the properties of this language Ga, deciding whether
there exists a support for a claim in a given knowledge base is either
polynomial, NP-complete, coNP-complete or SigP2-complete. We present a
dichotomous classification, P or DP-complete, for the verification problem and
a trichotomous classification for the relevance problem into either polynomial,
NP-complete, or SigP2-complete. These last two classifications are obtained by
means of algebraic tools
The PITA System: Tabling and Answer Subsumption for Reasoning under Uncertainty
Many real world domains require the representation of a measure of
uncertainty. The most common such representation is probability, and the
combination of probability with logic programs has given rise to the field of
Probabilistic Logic Programming (PLP), leading to languages such as the
Independent Choice Logic, Logic Programs with Annotated Disjunctions (LPADs),
Problog, PRISM and others. These languages share a similar distribution
semantics, and methods have been devised to translate programs between these
languages. The complexity of computing the probability of queries to these
general PLP programs is very high due to the need to combine the probabilities
of explanations that may not be exclusive. As one alternative, the PRISM system
reduces the complexity of query answering by restricting the form of programs
it can evaluate. As an entirely different alternative, Possibilistic Logic
Programs adopt a simpler metric of uncertainty than probability. Each of these
approaches -- general PLP, restricted PLP, and Possibilistic Logic Programming
-- can be useful in different domains depending on the form of uncertainty to
be represented, on the form of programs needed to model problems, and on the
scale of the problems to be solved. In this paper, we show how the PITA system,
which originally supported the general PLP language of LPADs, can also
efficiently support restricted PLP and Possibilistic Logic Programs. PITA
relies on tabling with answer subsumption and consists of a transformation
along with an API for library functions that interface with answer subsumption
The CIFF Proof Procedure for Abductive Logic Programming with Constraints: Theory, Implementation and Experiments
We present the CIFF proof procedure for abductive logic programming with
constraints, and we prove its correctness. CIFF is an extension of the IFF
proof procedure for abductive logic programming, relaxing the original
restrictions over variable quantification (allowedness conditions) and
incorporating a constraint solver to deal with numerical constraints as in
constraint logic programming. Finally, we describe the CIFF system, comparing
it with state of the art abductive systems and answer set solvers and showing
how to use it to program some applications. (To appear in Theory and Practice
of Logic Programming - TPLP)
Semantic Matchmaking as Non-Monotonic Reasoning: A Description Logic Approach
Matchmaking arises when supply and demand meet in an electronic marketplace,
or when agents search for a web service to perform some task, or even when
recruiting agencies match curricula and job profiles. In such open
environments, the objective of a matchmaking process is to discover best
available offers to a given request. We address the problem of matchmaking from
a knowledge representation perspective, with a formalization based on
Description Logics. We devise Concept Abduction and Concept Contraction as
non-monotonic inferences in Description Logics suitable for modeling
matchmaking in a logical framework, and prove some related complexity results.
We also present reasonable algorithms for semantic matchmaking based on the
devised inferences, and prove that they obey to some commonsense properties.
Finally, we report on the implementation of the proposed matchmaking framework,
which has been used both as a mediator in e-marketplaces and for semantic web
services discovery
Parameterized aspects of team-based formalisms and logical inference
Parameterized complexity is an interesting subfield of complexity theory that has received a lot of attention in recent years. Such an analysis characterizes the complexity of (classically) intractable problems by pinpointing the computational hardness to some structural aspects of the input. In this thesis, we study the parameterized complexity of various problems from the area of team-based formalisms as well as logical inference.
In the context of team-based formalism, we consider propositional dependence logic (PDL). The problems of interest are model checking (MC) and satisfiability (SAT). Peter Lohmann studied the classical complexity of these problems as a part of his Ph.D. thesis proving that both MC and SAT are NP-complete for PDL. This thesis addresses the parameterized complexity of these problems with respect to a wealth of different parameterizations.
Interestingly, SAT for PDL boils down to the satisfiability of propositional logic as implied by the downwards closure of PDL-formulas. We propose an interesting satisfiability variant (mSAT) asking for a satisfiable team of size m. The problem mSAT restores the ‘team semantic’ nature of satisfiability for PDL-formulas. We propose another problem (MaxSubTeam) asking for a maximal satisfiable team if a given team does not satisfy the input formula.
From the area of logical inference, we consider (logic-based) abduction and argumentation. The problem of interest in abduction (ABD) is to determine whether there is an explanation for a manifestation in a knowledge base (KB). Following Pfandler et al., we also consider two of its variants by imposing additional restrictions over the size of an explanation (ABD and ABD=). In argumentation, our focus is on the argument existence (ARG), relevance (ARG-Rel) and verification (ARG-Check) problems. The complexity of these problems have been explored already in the classical setting, and each of them is known to be complete for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy (except for ARG-Check which is DP-complete) for propositional logic. Moreover, the work by Nord and Zanuttini (resp., Creignou et al.) explores the complexity of these problems with respect to various restrictions over allowed KBs for ABD (ARG). In this thesis, we explore a two-dimensional complexity analysis for these problems. The first dimension is the restrictions over KB in Schaefer’s framework (the same direction as Nord and Zanuttini and Creignou et al.). What differentiates the work in this thesis from an existing research on these problems is that we add another dimension, the parameterization.
The results obtained in this thesis are interesting for two reasons. First (from a theoretical point of view), ideas used in our reductions can help in developing further reductions and prove (in)tractability results for related problems. Second (from a practical point of view), the obtained tractability results might help an agent designing an instance of a problem come up with the one for which the problem is tractable
Multi-agent planning using an abductive : event calculus
Temporal reasoning within distributed Artificial Intelligence Systems is faced with the problem of concurrent streams of action. Well known, logic-based systems using the SITUATION CALCULUS solve the frame problem in a purely linear manner. Recent research, however, has revealed that the EVENT CALCULUS under the abduction principle is capable of nonlinear planning. In this report, we present a planning service module which incorporates this approach into a constraint logic framework and even allows a notion of strong nonlinearity. The work includes the axiomatisation of appropriate versions of the EVENT CALCULUS, the development of a suitably sound and complete proof procedure that supports abduction and the implementation of both of these layers on the constraint platform OZ. We demonstrate prototypically how this module, EVE, can be integrated into an existing multi-agent architecture and evaluate the behaviour of such agents within an application domain, the loading dock scenario
- …