PSPACE Bounds for Rank-1 Modal Logics

For lack of general algorithmic methods that apply to wide classes of logics, establishing a complexity bound for a given modal logic is often a laborious task. The present work is a step towards a general theory of the complexity of modal logics. Our main result is that all rank-1 logics enjoy a shallow model property and thus are, under mild assumptions on the format of their axiomatisation, in PSPACE. This leads to a unified derivation of tight PSPACE-bounds for a number of logics including K, KD, coalition logic, graded modal logic, majority logic, and probabilistic modal logic. Our generic algorithm moreover finds tableau proofs that witness pleasant proof-theoretic properties including a weak subformula property. This generality is made possible by a coalgebraic semantics, which conveniently abstracts from the details of a given model class and thus allows covering a broad range of logics in a uniform way

Parameterized complexity of DPLL search procedures

We study the performance of DPLL algorithms on parameterized problems. In particular, we investigate how difficult it is to decide whether small solutions exist for satisfiability and other combinatorial problems. For this purpose we develop a Prover-Delayer game which models the running time of DPLL procedures and we establish an information-theoretic method to obtain lower bounds to the running time of parameterized DPLL procedures. We illustrate this technique by showing lower bounds to the parameterized pigeonhole principle and to the ordering principle. As our main application we study the DPLL procedure for the problem of deciding whether a graph has a small clique. We show that proving the absence of a k-clique requires n steps for a non-trivial distribution of graphs close to the critical threshold. For the restricted case of tree-like Parameterized Resolution, this result answers a question asked in [11] of understanding the Resolution complexity of this family of formulas

The Language of Search

This paper is concerned with a class of algorithms that perform exhaustive search on propositional knowledge bases. We show that each of these algorithms defines and generates a propositional language. Specifically, we show that the trace of a search can be interpreted as a combinational circuit, and a search algorithm then defines a propositional language consisting of circuits that are generated across all possible executions of the algorithm. In particular, we show that several versions of exhaustive DPLL search correspond to such well-known languages as FBDD, OBDD, and a precisely-defined subset of d-DNNF. By thus mapping search algorithms to propositional languages, we provide a uniform and practical framework in which successful search techniques can be harnessed for compilation of knowledge into various languages of interest, and a new methodology whereby the power and limitations of search algorithms can be understood by looking up the tractability and succinctness of the corresponding propositional languages

Against the possibility of a formal account of rationality

I analyze a recent exchange between Adam Elga and Julian Jonker concerning unsharp (or imprecise) credences and decision-making over them. Elga holds that unsharp credences are necessarily irrational; I agree with Jonker's reply that they can be rational as long as the agent switches to a nonlinear valuation. Through the lens of computational complexity theory, I then argue that even though nonlinear valuations can be rational, they come in general at the price of computational intractability, and that this problematizes their use in defining rationality. I conclude that the meaning of "rationality" may be philosophically vague

On the Complexity of Finding Second-Best Abductive Explanations

While looking for abductive explanations of a given set of manifestations, an ordering between possible solutions is often assumed. The complexity of finding/verifying optimal solutions is already known. In this paper we consider the computational complexity of finding second-best solutions. We consider different orderings, and consider also different possible definitions of what a second-best solution is

Improving Model Finding for Integrated Quantitative-qualitative Spatial Reasoning With First-order Logic Ontologies

Many spatial standards are developed to harmonize the semantics and specifications of GIS data and for sophisticated reasoning. All these standards include some types of simple and complex geometric features, and some of them incorporate simple mereotopological relations. But the relations as used in these standards, only allow the extraction of qualitative information from geometric data and lack formal semantics that link geometric representations with mereotopological or other qualitative relations. This impedes integrated reasoning over qualitative data obtained from geometric sources and “native” topological information – for example as provided from textual sources where precise locations or spatial extents are unknown or unknowable. To address this issue, the first contribution in this dissertation is a first-order logical ontology that treats geometric features (e.g. polylines, polygons) and relations between them as specializations of more general types of features (e.g. any kind of 2D or 1D features) and mereotopological relations between them. Key to this endeavor is the use of a multidimensional theory of space wherein, unlike traditional logical theories of mereotopology (like RCC), spatial entities of different dimensions can co-exist and be related. However terminating or tractable reasoning with such an expressive ontology and potentially large amounts of data is a challenging AI problem. Model finding tools used to verify FOL ontologies with data usually employ a SAT solver to determine the satisfiability of the propositional instantiations (SAT problems) of the ontology. These solvers often experience scalability issues with increasing number of objects and size and complexity of the ontology, limiting its use to ontologies with small signatures and building small models with less than 20 objects. To investigate how an ontology influences the size of its SAT translation and consequently the model finder’s performance, we develop a formalization of FOL ontologies with data. We theoretically identify parameters of an ontology that significantly contribute to the dramatic growth in size of the SAT problem. The search space of the SAT problem is exponential in the signature of the ontology (the number of predicates in the axiomatization and any additional predicates from skolemization) and the number of distinct objects in the model. Axiomatizations that contain many definitions lead to large number of SAT propositional clauses. This is from the conversion of biconditionals to clausal form. We therefore postulate that optional definitions are ideal sentences that can be eliminated from an ontology to boost model finder’s performance. We then formalize optional definition elimination (ODE) as an FOL ontology preprocessing step and test the simplification on a set of spatial benchmark problems to generate smaller SAT problems (with fewer clauses and variables) without changing the satisfiability and semantic meaning of the problem. We experimentally demonstrate that the reduction in SAT problem size also leads to improved model finding with state-of-the-art model finders, with speedups of 10-99%. Altogether, this dissertation improves spatial reasoning capabilities using FOL ontologies – in terms of a formal framework for integrated qualitative-geometric reasoning, and specific ontology preprocessing steps that can be built into automated reasoners to achieve better speedups in model finding times, and scalability with moderately-sized datasets

An Atypical Survey of Typical-Case Heuristic Algorithms

Heuristic approaches often do so well that they seem to pretty much always give the right answer. How close can heuristic algorithms get to always giving the right answer, without inducing seismic complexity-theoretic consequences? This article first discusses how a series of results by Berman, Buhrman, Hartmanis, Homer, Longpr\'{e}, Ogiwara, Sch\"{o}ening, and Watanabe, from the early 1970s through the early 1990s, explicitly or implicitly limited how well heuristic algorithms can do on NP-hard problems. In particular, many desirable levels of heuristic success cannot be obtained unless severe, highly unlikely complexity class collapses occur. Second, we survey work initiated by Goldreich and Wigderson, who showed how under plausible assumptions deterministic heuristics for randomized computation can achieve a very high frequency of correctness. Finally, we consider formal ways in which theory can help explain the effectiveness of heuristics that solve NP-hard problems in practice.Comment: This article is currently scheduled to appear in the December 2012 issue of SIGACT New