Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fast algorithms for revision of some special propositional knowledge bases

  • Notes
  • Published:
Journal of Computer Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, the computational complexity of propositional clause set counterfactuals is discussed. It is shown that the computational complexity of propositional clause set counterfactuals is at the second level of the polynomial hierarchy, and that the computational complexity of propositional Horn clause set counterfactuals is at the first level of the polynomial hierarchy. Furthermore, some polynomial algorithms are presented for some special propositional clause set, such as the unique satisfiable clause set and the clause set of which only one subset is minimally inconsistent with the input clause whose inconsistency check can be solved in polynomial time.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fagin R, Ullman J D, Vardi M Y. On the semantics of updates in databases. InProc. the 2nd ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principle of Database Systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 1983, pp.352–365.

  2. Ginsberg M L, Smith D E. Reasoning about action I: A possible worlds approach.Artificial Intelligence, 1988, 35: 165–195

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Dalal M. Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: Preliminary report. InProc. the 7th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA, 1988, pp.475–479.

  4. Satoh K. Nonmonotonic reasoning by minimal belief revision. InProc. International Conference on 5th Generation Computer System, Tokyo, 1988, pp.455–462.

  5. Borgida A. Language features for flexible handling of exception in information systems.ACM Trans. Database Syst., 1985, 10: 536–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Weber A. Updating propositional formulae. InProc. First Conference on Expert Database Systems, South Carolina, USA, 1986, pp.487–500.

  7. Forbus K D. Introducing actions into qualitative, simulation. InProc. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, Michigan, USA, 1989, 50: 1273–1278.

  8. Winslett M. Reasoning about action using possible models approach. InProc. the 7th national Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA, 1988, pp.89–93.

  9. Damásio C V, Nejdl W, Pereira L P. REVISE: An extended logic programming systems for revising knowledge bases. InProc. the International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Bonn, 1994, pp.607–618.

  10. Odinaldo Rodrigues, Mario Benevides. Belief revision in pseudo-definite sets. InProc. the 11th Brazilian Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Tarcisio Pequeno (ed.), SBIA, 1994, Fortaleza, Brazil, September, 1994, pp.203–208.

  11. Ginsberg M L. Counterfactuals.Artificial Intelligence, 1986, 30: 35–79.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Eiter T, Gottlob G. On the complexity of propositional knoledge base revision, updates and counterfactuals.Artificial Intelligence, 1992, 57: 227–270.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Joseph W Sullivan, Sherman W Tyler. Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM Press, New York, 1991.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Papadimitriou C H. Computational Complexity. San Diego: Addison Welsey, 1994.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Gallier J H. Logic for Computer Science, Foundations of Automatic Theorem Proving. New York: John Wilsey & Sons, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cook S. A. The complexity of theorem-proving procedures, InProc. the Third ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1971, pp.151–158.

  17. Stockmeyer L, Meyer A. Word problems requiring exponential time. InProc. 5th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, Austin, Texas, New York, ACM Press, 1973, pp.1–9.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Minoux M. The unique Horn-satisfiability problem and quadratic Boolean equations.Annala of Mathematics and AI, 1992, 6: 253–266.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Berman K, Franco J, Schlipf J. Unique satisfiability for Horn sets can be solved in nearly linear time. Technical Report CS-TR-92-5, Computer Science Department, University of Cincinnati, 1992.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Software, The Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100080, Beijing, P.R. China

    Luan ShangMin & GuoZhong Dai

Authors
  1. Luan ShangMin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. GuoZhong Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luan ShangMin.

Additional information

This work is supported by the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China under Grant Nos.60033020 and 60103020 and the China Postdoctoral Foundation of Sciences.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

ShangMin, L., Dai, G. Fast algorithms for revision of some special propositional knowledge bases. J. Comput. Sci. & Technol. 18, 388–392 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02948909

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02948909

Keywords

Search

Navigation