130 research outputs found
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
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
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
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
On embedding default logic into Moore's autoepistemic logic
AbstractRecently Gottlob proved [2] that there does not exist a faithful modular translation of default logic into autoepistemic logic, and presented a non-modular translation. Gottlob's translation, however, is indirect (it uses ânonmonotonic logic Nâ as an intermediate point), quite complex and exploits sophisticated encoding of proof theory in autoepistemic formulas. We provide a simpler and more intuitive (non-modular) direct translation. In addition, our argument is purely model-theoretic
The Complexity of Reasoning for Fragments of Default Logic
Default logic was introduced by Reiter in 1980. In 1992, Gottlob classified
the complexity of the extension existence problem for propositional default
logic as \SigmaPtwo-complete, and the complexity of the credulous and
skeptical reasoning problem as SigmaP2-complete, resp. PiP2-complete.
Additionally, he investigated restrictions on the default rules, i.e.,
semi-normal default rules. Selman made in 1992 a similar approach with
disjunction-free and unary default rules. In this paper we systematically
restrict the set of allowed propositional connectives. We give a complete
complexity classification for all sets of Boolean functions in the meaning of
Post's lattice for all three common decision problems for propositional default
logic. We show that the complexity is a hexachotomy (SigmaP2-, DeltaP2-, NP-,
P-, NL-complete, trivial) for the extension existence problem, while for the
credulous and skeptical reasoning problem we obtain similar classifications
without trivial cases.Comment: Corrected versio
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
- âŠ