Abstract
In this paper, we determine the complexity of propositional theory curbing. Theory Curbing is a nonmonotonic technique of common sense reasoning that is based on model minimality but unlike circumscription treats disjunction inclusively. In an earlier paper, theory curbing was shown to be feasible in PSPACE, but the precise complexity was left open. In the present paper we prove it to be PSPACE-complete. In particular, we show that both the model checking and the inferencing problem under curbed theories are PSPACE complete. We also study relevant cases where the complexity of theory curbing is located - just as for plain propositional circumscription - at the second level of the polynomial hierarchy and is thus presumably easier than PSPACE.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
B. Bodenstorfer. How Many Minimal Upper Bounds of Minimal Upper Bounds. Computing, 56:171–178, 1996. 2, 7, 8
M. Cadoli. The Complexity of Model Checking for Circumscriptive Formulae. Information Processing Letters, 44:113–118, 1992. 2
M. Cadoli, A. Giovanardi, and M. Schaerf. An Algorithm to Evaluate Quantified Boolean Formulae. In Proc. AAAI/IAAI-98, pp. 262–267, 1998. 2
E. Chan. A Possible Worlds Semantics for Disjunctive Databases. IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Engineering, 5(2):282–292, 1993. 1, 2
H. Decker and J. C. Casamayor. Sustained Models and Sustained Answers in First-Order Databases. In A. Olivé, editor, Proc. 4th International Workshop on the Deductive Approach to Information Systems and Databases (DAISD 1993), 1993, Lloret de Mar, Catalonia, pp. 267–286, Report de recerca, LSI/93-25-R, Departament de Llenguatges i Sistemes Informatics, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, 1990. 1, 2
T. Eiter and G. Gottlob. Propositional Circumscription and Extended Closed World Reasoning are ΠP 2-complete. Theoretical Computer Science, 114(2):231–245, 1993. Addendum 118:315. 2
T. Eiter, G. Gottlob, and Y. Gurevich. Curb Your Theory! A circumscriptive approach for inclusive interpretation of disjunctive information. In R. Bajcsy, editor, Proc. 13th Intl. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-93), pp. 634–639. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993. 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 14
R. Feldmann, B. Monien, and S. Schamberger. A Distributed Algorithm to Evaluate Quanti-fied Boolean Formulae. In Proc. National Conference on AI (AAAI’00), Austin, Texas, 2000. AAAI Press. 2
A. Flögel, M. Karpinski, and H. Kleine Büning. Resolution for Quantified Boolean Formulas. Information and Computation, 117:12–18, 1995. 2
P. Liberatore. The Complexity of Iterated Belief Revision. In F. Afrati and P. Kolaitis, editors, Proc. 6th Intl. Conference on Database Theory (ICDT-97), LNCS 1186, pp. 276–290, Springer, 1997. 2, 2
P. Liberatore. The Complexity of Belief Update. Artificial Intelligence, 119(1–2):141–190, 2000. 2
V. Lifschitz. Computing Circumscription. In Proc. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-85), pp. 121–127, 1985. 5, 6
V. Lifschitz. Circumscription. In D. Gabbay, C. Hogger, and J. Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume III, pages 297–352. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994. 1, 16
J. McCarthy. Circumscription-A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:27–39, 1980. 1
J. Rintanen. Improvements to the Evaluation of Quantified Boolean Formulae. In Proc. IJCAI’ 99, pp. 1192–1197. AAAI Press, 1999. 2
K. Ross. The Well-Founded Semantics for Disjunctive Logic Programs. In W. Kim, J.-M. Nicholas, and S. Nishio, editors, Proc. First Intl. Conf. on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases (DOOD-89), pp. 352–369. Elsevier Science Pub., 1990. 1, 2
K. Ross and R. Topor. Inferring Negative Information From Disjunctive Databases. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 4(2):397–424, 1988. 1, 2
C. Sakama. Possible Model Semantics for Disjunctive Databases. In W. Kim, J.-M. Nicholas, and S. Nishio, editors, Proc. First Intl. Conf. on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases (DOOD-89), pp. 337–351. Elsevier Science Pub., 1990. 1, 2
C. Sakama and K. Inoue. Negation in Disjunctive Logic Programs. In Proc. ICLP-93, Budapest, Hungary, June 1993. MIT-Press. 1, 2
F. Scarcello, N. Leone, and L. Palopoli. Curbing Theories: Fixpoint Semantics and Complexity Issues. In M. Alpuente and M. I. Sessa, editors, Proc. 1995 Joint Conference on Declarative Programming (GULP-PRODE’95), pp. 545–554. Palladio Press, 1995. 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 15
J. van Benthem and K. Doets. Higher Order Logic. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol.I, chapter I.4, pp. 275–329. D.Reidel Pub., 1983. 5, 5
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Eiter, T., Gottlob, G. (2000). On the Complexity of Theory Curbing. In: Parigot, M., Voronkov, A. (eds) Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning. LPAR 2000. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence(), vol 1955. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44404-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44404-1_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41285-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44404-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive