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

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 $\phi$ and an atom $x$, whether $x$ is true in some cardinality-minimal model of $\phi$. This problem is easy for the Horn fragment, but, as we will show in this paper, remains $\Theta_2$-complete (and thus $\mathrm{NP}$-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

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

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