Skip to main content

Is non-monotonic reasoning always harder

  • Regular Papers
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic Programming And Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR 1997)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1265))

Abstract

Although it has been shown that non-monotonic reasoning is presumably harder than classical reasoning, there are cases where a non-monotonic treatment actually simplifies matters. Indeed, one of the reasons for considering non-monotonic systems is the hope of speeding up reasoning, and not to slow it down. In this paper, we consider proof lengths in a cut-free sequent calculus, and we show that the application of circumscription (or completion) to certain first-order formulae leads to a non-elementary speed-up of proof length. This is possible because the introduction of the completion formula can simulate the cut rule.

The authors would like to thank Georg Gottlob and Thomas Eiter for their useful comments and constructive criticisms on an earlier version of this paper. The first author was partly supported by the Christian Doppler Labor für Expertensysteme, Wien, Austria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. M. Baaz and A. Leitsch. Complexity of Resolution Proofs and Function Introduction. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 57:181–215, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. M. Baaz and A. Leitsch. On Skolemization and Proof Complexity. Fundamenta Informaticae, 20:353–379, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Ben-Eliyahu and R. Dechter. Default Logic, Propositional Logic and Constraints. In Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Altos, CA, 1991. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  4. W. Bibel. Deduction: Automated Logic. Academic Press, London, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P. A. Bonatti. Proof Systems for Default and Autoepistemic Logics. In P. Miglioli, U. Moscato, D. Mundici and M. Ornaghi, editors, Proceedings TABLEAUX'96, Springer LNCS 1071, pp. 127–142, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. Cadoli, F. M. Donini, and M. Schaerf. Is Intractability of Non-Monotonic Reasoninga Real Drawback? In Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 946–951. MIT Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Cadoli, F. M. Donini, and M. Schaerf. On Compact Representation of Propositional Circumscription. In Proceedings STAGS '95, Springer LNCS 900, pp. 205–216, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. Cadoli and M. Schaerf. A Survey of Complexity Results for Non-Monotonic Logics. Journal of Logic Programming, 17:127–160, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  9. W. F. Dowling and J. H. Gallier. Linear-Time Algorithms for Testing the Satisfiability of Propositional Horn Formulae. Journal of Logic Programming, 3:267–284, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  10. U. Egly. On Methods of Function Introduction and Related Concepts. PhD thesis, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt, Alexanderstr. 10, D-64283 Darmstadt, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  11. U. Egly. On Different Structure-Preserving Translations to Normal Form, 1996. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 22:121–142.

    Google Scholar 

  12. U. Egly and H. Tompits. Non-Elementary Speed-Ups in Default Reasoning. To appear in Proceedings ECSQARU'97, Springer 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  13. T. Eiter and G. Gottlob. Propositional Circumscription and Extended Closed World Reasoning are Π P 2-complete. Journal of Theoretical Computer Science, 114(2):231–245, 1993. Addendum: vol. 118, p. 315, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  14. G. Gentzen. Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 39:176–210, 405–431, 1935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. G. Gottlob. Complexity Results for Nonmonotonic Logics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2:397–425, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  16. H. A. Kautz and B. Selman. Hard Problems for Simple Default Logics. Artificial Intelligence, 49:243–379, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  17. V. Lifschitz. Computing Circumscription. In Proceedings of IJCAI-85, pages 121–127, Los Altos, CA., 1985. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  18. I. Niemelä. On the Decidability and Complexity of Autoepistemic Reasoning. Fundamenta Informaticae, 17:117–155, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  19. V. P. Orevkov. Lower Bounds for Increasing Complexity of Derivations after Cut Elimination. Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov Leningradskogo Otdeleniya Matematicheskogo Instituta im V. A. Steklova AN SSSR, 88:137–161, 1979. English translation in Journal of Soviet Mathematics, 2337–2350, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. Schlipf. Decidability and Definability with Circumscription. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 35:173–191, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  21. G. Schwarz and M. Truszczyński. Nonmonotonic Reasoning is Sometimes Simpler. Journal of Logic and Computation, 6(2):295–308, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  22. R. Statman. Lower Bounds on Herbrand's Theorem. In Proc. AMS 75, pages 104–107, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Jürgen Dix Ulrich Furbach Anil Nerode

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Egly, U., Tompits, H. (1997). Is non-monotonic reasoning always harder. In: Dix, J., Furbach, U., Nerode, A. (eds) Logic Programming And Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LPNMR 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1265. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63255-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63255-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63255-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69249-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics