Propositional Case Research Articles

Dual forgetting operators in the context of weakest sufficient and strongest necessary conditions

Forgetting is an important concept in knowledge representation and automated reasoning with widespread applications across a number of disciplines. A standard forgetting operator, characterized in [26] in terms of model-theoretic semantics and primarily focusing on the propositional case, opened up a new research subarea. In this paper, a new operator called weak forgetting, dual to standard forgetting, is introduced and both together are shown to offer a new more uniform perspective on forgetting operators in general. Both the weak and standard forgetting operators are characterized in terms of entailment and inference, rather than a model theoretic semantics. This naturally leads to a useful algorithmic perspective based on quantifier elimination and the use of Ackermann's Lemma and its fixpoint generalization. The strong formal relationship between standard forgetting and strongest necessary conditions and weak forgetting and weakest sufficient conditions is also characterized quite naturally through the entailment-based, inferential perspective used. The framework used to characterize the dual forgetting operators is also generalized to the first-order case and includes useful algorithms for computing first-order forgetting operators in special cases. Practical examples are also included to show the importance of both weak and standard forgetting in modeling and representation.

Reasoning about knowledge and conditional probability

We present a proof-theoretical and model-theoretical approach to reasoning about knowledge and conditional probability. We extend both the language of epistemic logic and the language of linear weight formulas, allowing statements like “Agent Ag knows that the probability of A given B is at least a half”. We present both a propositional and a first-order version of the logic. We provide sound and complete axiomatizations for both logics and we prove decidability in the propositional case.

Encoding de Finetti's coherence within Łukasiewicz logic and MV-algebras

The present paper investigates proof-theoretical and algebraic properties for the probability logic FP(Ł,Ł), meant for reasoning on the uncertainty of Łukasiewicz events. Methodologically speaking, we will consider a translation function between formulas of FP(Ł,Ł) to the propositional language of Łukasiewicz logic that allows us to apply the latter and the well-developed theory of MV-algebras directly to probabilistic reasoning. More precisely, leveraging on such translation map, we will show proof-theoretical properties for FP(Ł,Ł) and introduce a class of algebras with respect to which FP(Ł,Ł) will be proved to be locally sound and complete. Finally, we will apply these previous results to investigate what we called “probabilistic unification problem”. In this respect, we will prove that Ghilardi's algebraic view on unification can be extended to our case and, on par with the Łukasiewicz propositional case, we show that probabilistic unification is of nullary type.

FIRST-ORDER FRIENDLINESS

Abstract In this note we study a counterpart in predicate logic of the notion of logical friendliness, introduced into propositional logic in [15]. The result is a new consequence relation for predicate languages with equality using first-order models. While compactness, interpolation and axiomatizability fail dramatically, several other properties are preserved from the propositional case. Divergence is diminished when the language does not contain equality with its standard interpretation.

Monadic NM-algebras: an algebraic approach to monadic predicate nilpotent minimum logic

AbstractIn this paper, we further study the variety of monadic nilpotent minimum (NM)-algebras and their corresponding logic. In order to solve the drawback of monadic NM-algebras, we review some well-known classes of monadic t-norm-based fuzzy logical algebras and then revise the axiomatic system of monadic NM-algebras. Then we show that the variety of monadic NM-algebras is the equivalent algebraic semantics of monadic predicate fuzzy logic $\textbf {mNM}_{\forall }$, which is equivalent to the modal fuzzy logic $\textbf {S5(NM)}$. Moreover, we show that the propositional case of the modal fuzzy logic $\textbf {S5(NM)}$, which is $\textbf{S5}^{\prime}\textbf{(NM),}$ is also complete with respect to the variety of monadic NM-algebras in the sense of Blok and Pigozzi and obtain a necessary and sufficient condition for this logic to be semilinear. Finally, we give some representations of monadic NM-algebras. In particular, we give some characterizations of representable and directly indecomposable monadic NM-algebras.

Principles of KLM-style Defeasible Description Logics

The past 25 years have seen many attempts to introduce defeasible-reasoning capabilities into a description logic setting. Many, if not most, of these attempts are based on preferential extensions of description logics, with a significant number of these, in turn, following the so-called KLM approach to defeasible reasoning initially advocated for propositional logic by Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor. Each of these attempts has its own aim of investigating particular constructions and variants of the (KLM-style) preferential approach. Here our aim is to provide a comprehensive study of the formal foundations of preferential defeasible reasoning for description logics in the KLM tradition. We start by investigating a notion of defeasible subsumption in the spirit of defeasible conditionals as studied by Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor in the propositional case. In particular, we consider a natural and intuitive semantics for defeasible subsumption, and we investigate KLM-style syntactic properties for both preferential and rational subsumption. Our contribution includes two representation results linking our semantic constructions to the set of preferential and rational properties considered. Besides showing that our semantics is appropriate, these results pave the way for more effective decision procedures for defeasible reasoning in description logics. Indeed, we also analyse the problem of non-monotonic reasoning in description logics at the level of entailment and present an algorithm for the computation of rational closure of a defeasible knowledge base. Importantly, our algorithm relies completely on classical entailment and shows that the computational complexity of reasoning over defeasible knowledge bases is no worse than that of reasoning in the underlying classical DL ALC .

A reconstruction of multipreference closure

The paper describes a preferential approach for dealing with exceptions in KLM preferential logics, based on the rational closure. It is well known that rational closure does not allow an independent handling of inheritance of different defeasible properties of concepts. In this work, we consider an alternative closure construction, called Multi Preference closure (MP-closure), which has been first considered for reasoning with exceptions in DLs. We reconstruct the notion of MP-closure in the propositional case and show that it is a natural (weaker) variant of Lehmann's lexicographic closure, which appears to be too bold in some cases. The MP-closure defines a preferential consequence relation that, although weaker than lexicographic closure, is stronger than Relevant Closure.

Context, Content, and the Occasional Costs of Implicature Computation.

The computation of scalar implicatures is sometimes costly relative to basic meanings. Among the costly computations are those that involve strengthening “some” to “not all” and strengthening inclusive disjunction to exclusive disjunction. The opposite is true for some other cases of strengthening, where the strengthened meaning is less costly than its corresponding basic meaning. These include conjunctive strengthenings of disjunctive sentences (e.g., free-choice inferences) and exactly-readings of numerals. Assuming that these are indeed all instances of strengthening via implicature/exhaustification, the puzzle is to explain why strengthening sometimes increases costs while at other times it decreases costs. I develop a theory of processing costs that makes no reference to the strengthening mechanism or to other aspects of the derivation of the sentence's form/meaning. Instead, costs are determined by domain-general considerations of the grammar's output, and in particular by aspects of the meanings of ambiguous sentences and particular ways they update the context. Specifically, I propose that when the hearer has to disambiguate between a sentence's basic and strengthened meaning, the processing cost of any particular choice is a function of (i) a measure of the semantic complexity of the chosen meaning and (ii) a measure of how much relevant uncertainty it leaves behind in the context. I measure semantic complexity with Boolean Complexity in the propositional case and with semantic automata in the quantificational case, both of which give a domain-general measure of the minimal representational complexity needed to express the given meaning. I measure relevant uncertainty with the information-theoretic notion of entropy; this domain-general measure formalizes how ‘far' the meaning is from giving a complete answer to the question under discussion, and hence gives an indication of how much representational complexity is yet to come. Processing costs thus follow from domain-general considerations of current and anticipated representational complexity. The results might also speak to functional motivations for having strengthening mechanisms in the first place. Specifically, exhaustification allows language users to use simpler forms than would be available without it to both resolve relevant uncertainties and convey complex meanings.

Gestural Cosuppositions within the Transparency Theory

Gestural Cosuppositions within the Transparency Theory

Modal logic with non-deterministic semantics: Part I—Propositional case

AbstractDugundji proved in 1940 that most parts of standard modal systems cannot be characterized by a single finite deterministic matrix. In the eighties, Ivlev proposed a semantics of four-valued non-deterministic matrices (which he called quasi-matrices), in order to characterize a hierarchy of weak modal logics without the necessitation rule. In a previous paper, we extended some systems of Ivlev’s hierarchy, also proposing weaker six-valued systems in which the (T) axiom was replaced by the deontic (D) axiom. In this paper, we propose even weaker systems, by eliminating both axioms, which are characterized by eight-valued non-deterministic matrices. In addition, we prove completeness for those new systems. It is natural to ask if a characterization by finite ordinary (deterministic) logical matrices would be possible for all those Ivlev-like systems. We will show that finite deterministic matrices do not characterize any of them.

Multi-agent Logics for Reasoning About Higher-Order Upper and Lower Probabilities

We present a propositional and a first-order logic for reasoning about higher-order upper and lower probabilities. We provide sound and complete axiomatizations for the logics and we prove decidability in the propositional case. Furthermore, we show that the introduced logics generalize some existing probability logics.

Determining inference semantics for disjunctive logic programs

In a seminal paper, Gelfond and Lifschitz [34] introduced simple disjunctive logic programs, where in rule heads the disjunction operator “|” is used to express incomplete information, and defined the answer set semantics (called GL-semantics for short) based on a program transformation (called GL-reduct) and the minimal model requirement. Our observations reveal that the requirement of the GL-semantics, i.e., an answer set should be a minimal model of rules of the GL-reduct, may sometimes be too strong a condition and exclude some answer sets that would be reasonably acceptable. To address this, we present an alternative, more permissive answer set semantics, called the determining inference (DI) semantics. Specifically, we introduce a head selection function to formalize the operator | and define answer sets as follows: (i) Given an interpretation I and a selection function sel, we transform a disjunctive program Π into a normal program ΠselI, called a disjunctive program reduct; (ii) given a base answer set semantics X for normal programs, we define I to be a candidate answer set of Π w.r.t. X if I is an answer set of ΠselI under X; and (iii) we define I to be an answer set of Π w.r.t. X if I is a minimal candidate answer set. The DI-semantics is general and applicable to extend any answer set semantics X for normal programs to disjunctive programs. By replacing X with the GLnlp-semantics defined by Gelfond and Lifschitz [33], we induce a DI-semantics for simple disjunctive programs, and by replacing X with the well-justified semantics defined by Shen et al. [65], we further induce a DI-semantics for general disjunctive programs. We also establish a novel characterization of the GL-semantics in terms of a disjunctive program reduct, which reveals the essential difference of the DI-semantics from the GL-semantics and leads us to giving a satisfactory solution to the open problem presented by Hitzler and Seda [36] about characterizing split normal derivatives of a simple disjunctive program Π such that answer sets of the normal derivatives are answer sets of Π under the GL-semantics. Finally we give computational complexity results; in particular we show that in the propositional case deciding whether a simple disjunctive program Π has some DI-answer set is NP-complete. This is in contrast to the GL-semantics and equivalent formulations such as the FLP-semantics [24], where deciding whether Π has some answer set is Σ2p-complete, while brave and cautious reasoning are Σ2p- and Π2p-complete, respectively, for both GL- and DI-answer sets. For general disjunctive programs with compound formulas as building blocks, the complexity of brave and cautious reasoning increases under DI-semantics by one level of the polynomial hierarchy, which thus offers higher problem solving capacity.

UNIFICATION IN SUPERINTUITIONISTIC PREDICATE LOGICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS

AbstractWe introduce unification in first-order logic. In propositional logic, unification was introduced by S. Ghilardi, see Ghilardi (1997, 1999, 2000). He successfully applied it in solving systematically the problem of admissibility of inference rules in intuitionistic and transitive modal propositional logics. Here we focus on superintuitionistic predicate logics and apply unification to some old and new problems: definability of disjunction and existential quantifier, disjunction and existential quantifier under implication, admissible rules, a basis for the passive rules, (almost) structural completeness, etc. For this aim we apply modified specific notions, introduced in propositional logic by Ghilardi, such as projective formulas, projective unifiers, etc.Unification in predicate logic seems to be harder than in the propositional case. Any definition of the key concept of substitution for predicate variables must take care of individual variables. We allow adding new free individual variables by substitutions (contrary to Pogorzelski & Prucnal (1975)). Moreover, since predicate logic is not as close to algebra as propositional logic, direct application of useful algebraic notions of finitely presented algebras, projective algebras, etc., is not possible.

Understanding cutting planes for QBFs

We study the cutting planes system CP+∀red for quantified Boolean formulas (QBF), obtained by augmenting propositional Cutting Planes with a universal reduction rule, and analyse the proof-theoretic strength of this new calculus. While in the propositional case, Cutting Planes is of intermediate strength between resolution and Frege, our findings here show that the situation in QBF is slightly more complex: while CP+∀red is again weaker than QBF Frege and stronger than the CDCL-based QBF resolution systems Q-Res and QU-Res, it turns out to be incomparable to even the weakest expansion-based QBF resolution system ∀Exp+Res. A similar picture holds for a semantic version semCP+∀red.Technically, our results establish the effectiveness of two lower bound techniques for CP+∀red: via strategy extraction and via monotone feasible interpolation.

Cautious reasoning in ASP via minimal models and unsatisfiable cores

AbstractAnswer Set Programming (ASP) is a logic-based knowledge representation framework, supporting—among other reasoning modes—the central task of query answering. In the propositional case, query answering amounts to computing cautious consequences of the input program among the atoms in a given set of candidates, where a cautious consequence is an atom belonging to all stable models. Currently, the most efficient algorithms either iteratively verify the existence of a stable model of the input program extended with the complement of one candidate, where the candidate is heuristically selected, or introduce a clause enforcing the falsity of at least one candidate, so that the solver is free to choose which candidate to falsify at any time during the computation of a stable model. This paper introduces new algorithms for the computation of cautious consequences, with the aim of driving the solver to search for stable models discarding more candidates. Specifically, one of such algorithms enforces minimality on the set of true candidates, where different notions of minimality can be used, and another takes advantage of unsatisfiable cores computation. The algorithms are implemented inwasp, and experiments on benchmarks from the latest ASP competitions show that the new algorithms perform better than the state of the art.

Formalization of the Resolution Calculus for First-Order Logic

A formalization in Isabelle/HOL of the resolution calculus for first-order logic is presented. Its soundness and completeness are formally proven using the substitution lemma, semantic trees, Herbrand’s theorem, and the lifting lemma. In contrast to previous formalizations of resolution, it considers first-order logic with full first-order terms, instead of the propositional case.

Equivalence between answer-set programs under (partially) fixed input

Answer Set Programming has become an increasingly popular formalism for declarative problem solving. Among the huge body of theoretical results, investigations of different equivalence notions between logic programs play a fundamental role for understanding modularity and optimization. While strong equivalence between two programs holds if they can be faithfully replaced by each other in any context (facts and rules), uniform equivalence amounts to equivalent behavior of programs under any set of facts. Both notions (as well as several variants thereof) have been extensively studied. However, the somewhat reverse notion of equivalence which holds if two programs are equivalent under the addition of any set of proper rules (i.e., all rules except facts) has not been investigated yet. In this paper, we close this gap and give a thorough study of this notion, which we call rule equivalence , and its parameterized version where we allow facts over a given restricted alphabet to appear in the context. This notion of equivalence is thus a relationship between two programs whose input is (partially) fixed but where additional proper rules might still be added. Such a notion might be helpful in debugging of programs. We give full characterization results and a complexity analysis for the propositional case of rule equivalence and its relativized versions. Moreover, we address the problem of program simplification under rule equivalence. Finally, we show that rule equivalence is decidable in the non-ground case.

Complexity of validity for propositional dependence logics

We study the complexity of the validity problems of propositional dependence logic, modal dependence logic, and extended modal dependence logic. We show that the validity problem for propositional dependence logic is NEXPTIME-complete. In addition, we establish that the corresponding problems for modal dependence logic and extended modal dependence logic coincide. We show containment in NEXPTIMENP, whereas NEXPTIME-hardness follows from the propositional case.

An Axiomatic Account of Question Evocation: The Propositional Case

An axiomatic system for question evocation in Classical Propositional Logic is proposed. Soundness and completeness of the system are proven.

Explicit Constructive Logic ECL: a New Representation of Construction and Selection of Logical Information by an Epistemic Agent

One of the main goals of Explicit Constructive Logic(ECL) is to provide a constructive formulation of Full (Classical) Higher Order Logic LK! that can be seen as a foundation for knowl- edge representation. ECL is introduced as a subsystem Z! of LK!. The first order case Z1 and the propositional case Z0 of ECL are examined as well. A comparison of constructivism from the point of view of ECL and of the corresponding features of Intuitionistic Logic, and Constructive Paraconsistent Logic is proposed.