Advertisement

Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 287–317 | Cite as

Linear response time for implicate and implicant queries

  • Neil V. MurrayEmail author
  • Erik Rosenthal
Regular Paper

Abstract

Knowledge bases can be represented as propositional Formulas. A query of such a theory typically has the form, Is a clause an implicate of the theory? Answering such queries can require exponential time. In Kautz and Selman (Proceedings of the international workshop on processing declarative knowledge (PDK), Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1991), knowledge compilation was proposed as a solution to this problem: Pay the exponential penalty once by compiling the knowledge base into a target language that would guarantee fast response to queries. The reduced implicate trie (ri-trie), introduced in Murray and Rosenthal (Proceedings of the international conference TABLEAUX 2005—analytic tableaux and related methods, Koblenz, Germany. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 3702. Springer, Berlin, pp 231–244, 2005), may be used as a target language for knowledge compilation. It has the property that a query is processed in time linear in the size of the query, regardless of the size of the compiled knowledge base. In this paper, structures dual to ri-tries, the reduced implicant tries are investigated, and the dual problem—determining the implicants of a formula—is considered. The main result is that, for a given formula, the two structures can be merged into a single reduced implicate/implicant trie that can serve dual roles, representing both implicates and implicants. Furthermore, rii-tries can be computed directly, without separately computing and then merging the dual structures.

Keywords

Knowledge compilation Propositional logic Intractability Reduced implicate tries 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bryant RE (1992) Symbolic Boolean manipulation with ordered binary decision diagrams. ACM Comput Surv 24(3): 293–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cadoli M, Donini FM (1997) A survey on knowledge compilation. AI Commun 10: 137–150Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cavalcanti , João MB, Robertson D (2003) Web site synthesis based on computational logic. Knowl Inform Syst 5(3): 263–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coudert O, Madre J (1992) Implicit and incremental computation of primes and essential implicant primes of boolean functions. In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, pp 36–39Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Darwiche A (1998) Compiling devices: a structure-based approach. In: Proceedings of the international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR98). Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 156–166Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Darwiche A (2001) Decomposable negation normal form. J ACM 48(4): 608–647zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Kleer J (1992) An improved incremental algorithm for computing prime implicants. In: Proceedings of AAAI-92, San Jose, CA, pp 780–785Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elliott P (2004) An efficient projected minimal conflict generator for projected prime implicate and implicant generation. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Esposito F, Ferilli S, Basile TMA, Di Mauro N (2007) Inference of abduction theories for handling incompleteness in first-order learning. Knowl Inform Syst 11(2): 217–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forbus KD, de Kleer J (1993) Building problem solvers: listings. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hähnle R, Murray NV, Rosenthal E (2005) Normal forms for knowledge compilation. In: Ras Z (ed) Proceedings of the international symposium on methodologies for intelligent systems, (ISMIS ‘05). Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 3488. Springer, Berlin, pp 304–313Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hai L, Jigui S (2004) Knowledge compilation using the extension rule. J Autom Reason 32(2): 93–102zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hunter A (2004) Logical comparison of inconsistent perspectives using scoring functions. Knowl Inform Syst 6(5): 528–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jackson P, Pais J (1990) Computing prime implicants. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on automated deductions, Kaiserslautern, Germany, July, 1990. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 449. Springer, Berlin, pp 543–557Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jackson P (1992) Computing prime implicants incrementally. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on automated deduction, Saratoga Springs, NY, June, 1992. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 607. Springer, Berlin, pp 253–267Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kautz H, Selman B (1991) A general framework for knowledge compilation. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on processing declarative knowledge (PDK), Kaiserslautern, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kean A, Tsiknis G (1990) An incremental method for generating prime implicants/implicates. J Symb Comput 9: 185–206zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kean A, Tsiknis G (1992) Assumption based reasoning and clause management systems. Comput Intell 8(1): 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marquis P (1995) Knowledge compilation using theory prime implicates. In: Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), Morgan-Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp 837–843Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morrison DR (1968) PATRICIA—practical algorithm to retrieve information coded in alphanumeric. J ACM 15(4): 514–534CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Murray NV, Rosenthal E (2003) Tableaux, path dissolution, and decomposable negation normal form for knowledge compilation. In: Proceedings of the international conference TABLEAUX 2003—analytic tableaux and related methods, Rome, Italy. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 2796. Springer Berlin, pp 165–180Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murray NV, Rosenthal E (2005) Efficient query processing with compiled knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the international conference TABLEAUX 2005—analytic tableaux and related methods, Koblenz, Germany. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 3702. Springer, Berlin, pp 231–244Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Murray NV, Rosenthal E (2007) Efficient query processing with reduced implicate tries. J Autom Reason 38(1–3): 155–172zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Murray NV, Rosenthal E (2008) Linear response time for implicate and implicant queries. Technical Report SUNYA-CS-08-01, Department of Computer Science, University at Albany—SUNY. http://www.cs.albany.edu/~nvm/ritries/papers.html
  25. 25.
    Murray NV, Rosenthal E (2008) Reduced implicate/implicant tries. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on methodologies for intelligent systems—ISMIS 2008, Toronto, Canada. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 4994. Springer, Berlin, pp 203–214Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ngair T (1993) A new algorithm for incremental prime implicate generation. In: Proceedings of IJCAI-93, Chambery, FranceGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Przymusinski TC (1989) An algorithm to compute circumscription. Artif Intell 38: 49–73zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ramesh A, Becker G, Murray NV (1997) CNF and DNF considered harmful for computing prime implicants/implicates. J Autom Reason 18(3): 337–356zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ramesh A, Murray NV (1997) An application of non-clausal deduction in diagnosis. Expert Syst Appl 12(1): 119–126CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reiter R, de Kleer J (1987) Foundations of assumption-based truth maintenance systems: preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the 6th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, WA, pp 183–188Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Selman B, Kautz H (1996) Knowledge compilation and theory approximation. J ACM 43(2): 193–224zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Slagle JR, Chang CL, Lee RCT (1970) A new algorithm for generating prime implicants. IEEE Trans Comput C-19(4): 304–310CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Skillicorn DB, Wang Y (2001) Parallel and sequential algorithms for data mining using inductive logic. Knowl Inform Syst 3(4): 405–421zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Strzemecki T (1992) Polynomial-time algorithm for generation of prime implicants. J Complex 8: 37–63zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceState University of New YorkAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of New HavenWest HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations