Skip to main content

On the Intertranslatability of Autoepistemic, Default and Priority Logics, and Parallel Circumscription

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1489))

Abstract

This paper concentrates on comparing the relative expressive power of five non-monotonic logics that have appeared in the literature. The results on the computational complexity of these logics suggest that these logics have very similar expressive power that exceeds that of classical monotonic logic. A refined classification of non-monotonic logics by their expressive power can be obtained using translation functions that satisfy additional requirements such as faithfulness and modularity used by Gottlob. Basically, we adopt Gottlob’s framework for our analysis, but propose a weaker notion of faithfulness. A surprising result is deduced in light of Gottlob’s results: Moore’s autoepistemic logic is less expressive than Reiter’s default logic and Marek and Truszczyński’s strong autoepistemic logic. The expressive power of priority logic by Wang et al. is also analyzed and shown to coincide with that of default logic. Finally, we present an exact classification of the non-monotonic logics under consideration in the framework proposed in the paper.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. J.L. Balcázar, I. Díaz, and J. Gabarró. Structural Complexity I. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. P.A. Bonatti and T. Eiter. Querying disjunctive database through nonmonotonic logics. Theoretical Computer Science, 160:321–363, 1996.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. M. Cadoli, F.M. Donini, and M. Schaerf. Is intractability of nonmonotonic reasoning a real drawback. Artificial Intelligence, 88:215–251, 1996.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. M. Cadoli and M. Lenzerini. The complexity of propositional closed world reasoning and circumscription. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 2:255–310, 1994.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. T. Eiter and G. Gottlob. Propositional circumscription and extended closed world reasoning are Π p2 -complete. Theoretical Computer Science, 114:231–245, 1993.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. J. Engelfriet, V. Marek, J. Treur, and M. Truszczyński. Infinitary default logic for specification of nonmonotonic reasoning. In J. Alferes, L. Pereira, and E. Orlowska, editors, Proceedings of the 5th European Workshop on Logics is Artificial Intelligence, pages 224–236. Springer Verlag, October 1996. LNAI, vol. 1126.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Goran Gogic, Henry Kautz, Christos Papadimitriou, and Bart Selman. The comparative linguistics of knowledge representation. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 862–869, Montreal, Canada, August 1995. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  8. G. Gottlob. Complexity results for nonmonotonic logics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2(3):397–425, June 1992.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. G. Gottlob. Translating default logic into standard autoepistemic logic. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 42(2):711–740, 1995.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. T. Imielinski. Results on translating defaults to circumscription. Artificial Intelligence, 32:131–146, 1987.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. T. Janhunen. Representing autoepistemic introspection in terms of default rules. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 70–74, Budapest, Hungary, August 1996. John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  12. T. Janhunen. Separating disbeliefs from beliefs in autoepistemic reasoning. In J. Dix, U. Furbach, and A. Nerode, editors, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, pages 132–151, Dagstuhl, Germany, July 1997. Springer-Verlag. LNAI 1265.

    Google Scholar 

  13. K. Konolige. On the relation between default and autoepistemic logic. Artificial Intelligence, 35:343–382, 1988.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. V. Lifschitz. Computing circumscription. In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 121–127, Los Angeles, California, USA, August 1985. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  15. V. Marek, J. Treur, and M. Truszczyński. Representation theory for default logic. Annals of Mathematics in Artificial Intelligence, 21:343–358, 1997.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. W. Marek, G.F. Shvarts, and M. Truszczyński. Modal nonmonotonic logics: Ranges, characterization, computation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 395–404, Cambridge, MA, USA, April 1991. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  17. W. Marek and M. Truszczyński. Modal logic for default reasoning. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1:275–302, 1990.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. W. Marek and M. Truszczyński. Nonmonotonic Logic: Context-Dependent Reasoning. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. J. McCarthy. Circumscription—a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:27–39, 1980.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. R.C. Moore. Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 272–279, Karlsruhe, FRG, August 1983. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  21. I. Niemelä. On the decidability and complexity of autoepistemic reasoning. Fundamenta Informaticae, 17(1,2):117–155, 1992.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. I. Niemelä. A unifying framework for nonmonotonic reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 334–338, Vienna, Austria, August 1992. John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  23. I. Niemelä. Autoepistemic logic as a unified basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. Doctoral dissertation. Research report A24, Helsinki University of Technology, Digital Systems Laboratory, Espoo, Finland, August 1993.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. R. Reiter. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81–132, 1980.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. G. Schwarz. On embedding default logic into Moore’s autoepistemic logic. Artificial Intelligence, 80:349–359, 1996.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. J. Stillman. It’s not my default: the complexity of membership problems in restricted propositional default logics. In Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 571–578, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, July 1990. The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. M. Truszczyński. Modal interpretations of default logic. In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 393–398, Sydney, Australia, August 1991. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  28. X. Wang, J.-H. You, and L.Y. Yuan. Nonmonotonic reasoning by monotonic inferences with priority constraints. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Non-monotonic Extensions of Logic Programming, pages 91–109. Springer, 1996. LNAI 1216.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Janhunen, T. (1998). On the Intertranslatability of Autoepistemic, Default and Priority Logics, and Parallel Circumscription. In: Dix, J., del Cerro, L.F., Furbach, U. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 1998. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1489. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49545-2_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49545-2_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-65141-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49545-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics