190 research outputs found
The complexity of theorem proving in autoepistemic logic
Autoepistemic logic is one of the most successful formalisms for nonmonotonic reasoning. In this paper we provide a proof-theoretic analysis of sequent calculi for credulous and sceptical reasoning in propositional autoepistemic logic, introduced by Bonatti and Olivetti [5]. We show that the calculus for credulous reasoning obeys almost the same bounds on the proof size as Gentzen's system LK. Hence proving lower bounds for credulous reasoning will be as hard as proving lower bounds for LK. This contrasts with the situation in sceptical autoepistemic reasoning where we obtain an exponential lower bound to the proof length in Bonatti and Olivetti's calculus
The Complexity of Reasoning for Fragments of Autoepistemic Logic
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
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
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
Embedding Non-Ground Logic Programs into Autoepistemic Logic for Knowledge Base Combination
In the context of the Semantic Web, several approaches to the combination of
ontologies, given in terms of theories of classical first-order logic and rule
bases, have been proposed. They either cast rules into classical logic or limit
the interaction between rules and ontologies. Autoepistemic logic (AEL) is an
attractive formalism which allows to overcome these limitations, by serving as
a uniform host language to embed ontologies and nonmonotonic logic programs
into it. For the latter, so far only the propositional setting has been
considered. In this paper, we present three embeddings of normal and three
embeddings of disjunctive non-ground logic programs under the stable model
semantics into first-order AEL. While the embeddings all correspond with
respect to objective ground atoms, differences arise when considering
non-atomic formulas and combinations with first-order theories. We compare the
embeddings with respect to stable expansions and autoepistemic consequences,
considering the embeddings by themselves, as well as combinations with
classical theories. Our results reveal differences and correspondences of the
embeddings and provide useful guidance in the choice of a particular embedding
for knowledge combination.Comment: 52 pages, submitte
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
Space Efficiency of Propositional Knowledge Representation Formalisms
We investigate the space efficiency of a Propositional Knowledge
Representation (PKR) formalism. Intuitively, the space efficiency of a
formalism F in representing a certain piece of knowledge A, is the size of the
shortest formula of F that represents A. In this paper we assume that knowledge
is either a set of propositional interpretations (models) or a set of
propositional formulae (theorems). We provide a formal way of talking about the
relative ability of PKR formalisms to compactly represent a set of models or a
set of theorems. We introduce two new compactness measures, the corresponding
classes, and show that the relative space efficiency of a PKR formalism in
representing models/theorems is directly related to such classes. In
particular, we consider formalisms for nonmonotonic reasoning, such as
circumscription and default logic, as well as belief revision operators and the
stable model semantics for logic programs with negation. One interesting result
is that formalisms with the same time complexity do not necessarily belong to
the same space efficiency class
Optimizing the computation of overriding
We introduce optimization techniques for reasoning in DLN---a recently
introduced family of nonmonotonic description logics whose characterizing
features appear well-suited to model the applicative examples naturally arising
in biomedical domains and semantic web access control policies. Such
optimizations are validated experimentally on large KBs with more than 30K
axioms. Speedups exceed 1 order of magnitude. For the first time, response
times compatible with real-time reasoning are obtained with nonmonotonic KBs of
this size
- …