Abstract
Non-monotonic reasoning typically deals with three kinds of knowledge. Facts are meant to describe immutable statements of the environment. Rules define relationships among elements. Lastly, an ordering among the rules, in the form of a superiority relation, establishes the relative strength of rules. To revise a non-monotonic theory, we can change either one of these three elements. We prove that the problem of revising a non-monotonic theory by only changing the superiority relation is a NP-complete problem.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Billington, D., Antoniou, G., Governatori, G., Maher, M.: Revising nonmonotonic theories: The case of defeasible logic. In: Burgard, W., Christaller, T., Cremers, A.B. (eds.) KI 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1701, pp. 101–112. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Governatori, G., Olivieri, F., Scannapieco, S., Cristani, M.: Superiority based revision of defeasible theories. In: Dean, M., Hall, J., Rotolo, A., Tabet, S. (eds.) RuleML 2010. LNCS, vol. 6403, pp. 104–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Governatori, G., Olivieri, F., Scannapieco, S., Cristani, M.: Revision of defeasible logic preferences. CoRR abs/1206.5833 (2012)
Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2, 255–287 (2001)
Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Rock, A.: A family of defeasible reasoning logics and its implementation. In: ECAI 2000, pp. 459–463 (2000)
Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Embedding defeasible logic into logic programming. TPLP 6, 703–735 (2006)
Maher, M.J.: Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1, 691–711 (2001)
Mindolin, D., Chomicki, J.: Minimal contraction of preference relations. In: Fox, D., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) AAAI, pp. 492–497. AAAI Press (2008)
Mindolin, D., Chomicki, J.: Contracting preference relations for database applications. Artif. Intell. 175(7-8), 1092–1121 (2011)
Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Olivieri, F., Scannapieco, S.: Legal contractions: a logical analysis. In: Francesconi, E., Verheij, B. (eds.) ICAIL, pp. 63–72. ACM (2013)
Inoue, K., Sakama, C.: Abducing priorities to derive intended conclusions. In: Dean, T. (ed.) IJCAI, pp. 44–49. Morgan Kaufmann (1999)
Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 52, 263–294 (1991)
Cristani, M.: Many-sorted preference relations. In: Fensel, D., Giunchiglia, F., McGuinness, D.L., Williams, M.A. (eds.) KR, pp. 265–276. Morgan Kaufmann (2002)
Düntsch, I.: A microcomputer based system for small relation algebras. J. Symb. Comput. 18, 83–86 (1994)
Cristani, M., Hirsch, R.: The complexity of constraint satisfaction problems for small relation algebras. Artif. Intell. 156, 177–196 (2004)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Governatori, G., Olivieri, F., Scannapieco, S., Cristani, M. (2014). The Hardness of Revising Defeasible Preferences. In: Bikakis, A., Fodor, P., Roman, D. (eds) Rules on the Web. From Theory to Applications. RuleML 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8620. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09870-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09870-8_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-09869-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-09870-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)