Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the intertranslatability of non‐monotonic logics

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper concentrates on comparing the expressive powers of five non‐monotonic logics that have appeared in the literature. For this purpose, the concept of a polynomial, faithful and modular (PFM) translation function is adopted from earlier work by Gottlob, but a weaker notion of faithfulness is proposed. The existence of a PFM translation function from one non‐monotonic logic to another is interpreted to indicate that the latter logic is capable of expressing everything that the former logic does. Several translation functions are presented in the paper and shown to be PFM. Moreover, it is shown that PFM translation functions are impossible in certain cases, which indicates that the expressive powers of the logics involved differ strictly. The comparisons made in terms of PFM translation functions give rise to an exact classification of non‐monotonic logics, which is then named as the expressive power hierarchy (EPH) of non‐monotonic logics. Three syntactically restricted variants of default logic are also analyzed, and EPH is refined accordingly. Most importantly, the classes of EPH indicate some astonishing relationships in light of earlier results on the expressive power of non‐monotonic logics presented by Gottlob as well as Bonatti and Eiter: Moore’s autoepistemic logic and prerequisite‐free default logic are of equal expressive power and less expressive than Reiter’s default logic and Marek and Truszczyński’s strong autoepistemic logic.

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. P.A. Bonatti and T. Eiter, Querying disjunctive database through nonmonotonic logics, Theoretical Computer Science 160 (1996) 321-363.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. M. Cadoli, F.M. Donini and M. Schaerf, Is intractability of nonmonotonic reasoning a real drawback, Artificial Intelligence 88 (1996) 215-251.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. M. Cadoli and M. Lenzerini, The complexity of propositional closed world reasoning and circumscription, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 2 (1994) 255-310.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. J. Engelfriet, V. Marek, J. Treur and M. Truszczyński, Infinitary default logic for specification of nonmonotonic reasoning, in: Proceedings of the 5th European Workshop on Logics is Artificial Intelligence, eds. J. Alferes, L. Pereira and E. Orlowska, Lectures Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1126 (Springer, 1996) pp. 224-236.

  6. D.W. Etherington, Formalizing nonmonotonic reasoning systems, Artificial Intelligence 31 (1987) 41-85.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. D.W. Etherington, Relating default logic and circumscription, in: Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Milan, Italy (Morgan Kaufmann, 1987) pp. 489-494.

  8. G. Gogic, H. Kautz, C. Papadimitriou and B. Selman, The comparative linguistics of knowledge representation, in: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, Canada, August 1995 (Morgan Kaufmann, 1995) pp. 862-869.

  9. G. Gottlob, Complexity results for nonmonotonic logics, Journal of Logic and Computation 2(3) (1992) 397-425.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. G. Gottlob, The complexity of default reasoning under the stationary fixed point semantics, Information and Computation 121 (1995) 81-92.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

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

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. T. Imielinski, Results on translating defaults to circumscription, Artificial Intelligence 32 (1987) 131-146.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. T. Janhunen, Representing autoepistemic introspection in terms of default rules, in: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Budapest, Hungary, August 1996 (Wiley, 1996) pp. 70-74.

  14. T. Janhunen, Separating disbeliefs from beliefs in autoepistemic reasoning, in: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning, eds. J. Dix, U. Furbach and A. Nerode, Dagstuhl, Germany, July 1997, Lectures Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1265 (Springer, 1997) pp. 132-151.

  15. T. Janhunen, Non-monotonic systems: A framework for analyzing semantics and structural properties of non-monotonic reasoning, Doctoral dissertation, Research report A49, Helsinki University of Technology, Digital Systems Laboratory, Espoo, Finland (March 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  16. T. Janhunen, On the intertranslatability of autoepistemic, default and priority logics and parallel circumscription, in: Proceedings of the 6th European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, eds. J. Dix, L. Fariñas del Cerro and U. Furbach, Dagstuhl, Germany, October 1998, Lectures Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1489 (Springer, 1998) pp. 216-232.

  17. K. Konolige, On the relation between default and autoepistemic logic, Artificial Intelligence 35 (1988) pp. 343-382.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. K. Konolige, On the relation between autoepistemic logic and circumscription, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, MI, August 1989 (Morgan Kaufmann, 1989) pp. 1213-1218.

  19. V. Lifschitz, Computing circumscription, in: Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles, CA, August 1985 (Morgan Kaufmann, 1985) pp. 121-127.

  20. V. Marek, J. Treur and M. Truszczyński, Representation theory for default logic, Annals of Mathematics in Artificial Intelligence 21 (1997) 343-358.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. 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, Cambridge, MA, April 1991 (Morgan Kaufmann, 1991) pp. 395-404.

  22. W. Marek and M. Truszczyński, Modal logic for default reasoning, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 1 (1990) pp. 275-302.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. W. Marek and M. Truszczyński, Nonmonotonic Logic: Context-Dependent Reasoning (Springer, Berlin, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  24. J. McCarthy, Circumscription — a form of non-monotonic reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13 (1980) 27-39.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. R.C. Moore, Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Karlsruhe, FRG, August 1983 (Morgan Kaufmann, 1983) pp. 272-279.

  26. I. Niemelä, Towards automatic autoepistemic reasoning, in: Proceedings of the European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence — JELIA'90, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, September 1990 (Springer, 1990) pp. 428-443.

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

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. I. Niemelä, A unifying framework for nonmonotonic reasoning, in: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vienna, Austria, August 1992 (Wiley, 1992) pp. 334-338.

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

    Google Scholar 

  30. I. Niemelä, Implementing circumscription using a tableau method, in: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Budapest, Hungary, August 1996 (Wiley, 1996) pp. 80-84.

  31. R. Reiter, A logic for default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13 (1980) 81-132.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. G. Schwarz, On embedding default logic into Moore's autoepistemic logic, Artificial Intelligence 80 (1996) 349-359.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. 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, Boston, MA, July 1990 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990) pp. 571-578.

    Google Scholar 

  34. L. Stockmeyer, The polynomial-time hierarchy, Theoretical Computer Science 3 (1977) 1-22.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. L. Stockmeyer, Classifying the computational complexity of problems, Journal of Symbolic Logic 52(1) (1987) 1-43.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. M. Truszczyński, Modal interpretations of default logic, in: Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Sydney, Australia, August 1991 (Morgan Kaufmann, 1991) pp. 393-398.

  37. 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, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1216 (Springer, 1996) pp. 91-109.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Theoretical Computer Science, Helsinki University of Technology, P.O. Box 5400, FIN‐02015, HUT, Finland

    Tomi Janhunen

Authors
  1. Tomi Janhunen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Janhunen, T. On the intertranslatability of non‐monotonic logics. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 27, 79–128 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018915113814

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018915113814

Keywords

Search

Navigation