Journal of Automated Reasoning

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 297–336

# Computing Circumscription Revisited: A Reduction Algorithm

• Patrick Doherty
• Witold Łukaszewicz
• Andrzej SzaŁas
Article

## Abstract

In recent years, a great deal of attention has been devoted to logics of common-sense reasoning. Among the candidates proposed, circumscription has been perceived as an elegant mathematical technique for modeling nonmonotonic reasoning, but difficult to apply in practice. The major reason for this is the second-order nature of circumscription axioms and the difficulty in finding proper substitutions of predicate expressions for predicate variables. One solution to this problem is to compile, where possible, second-order formulas into equivalent first-order formulas. Although some progress has been made using this approach, the results are not as strong as one might desire and they are isolated in nature. In this article, we provide a general method that can be used in an algorithmic manner to reduce certain circumscription axioms to first-order formulas. The algorithm takes as input an arbitrary second-order formula and either returns as output an equivalent first-order formula, or terminates with failure. The class of second-order formulas, and analogously the class of circumscriptive theories that can be reduced, provably subsumes those covered by existing results. We demonstrate the generality of the algorithm using circumscriptive theories with mixed quantifiers (some involving Skolemization), variable constants, nonseparated formulas, and formulas with n-ary predicate variables. In addition, we analyze the strength of the algorithm, compare it with existing approaches, and provide formal subsumption results.

circumscription nonmonotonic reasoning quantifier elimination common-sense reasoning

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

### References

1. 1.
Ackermann, W.: Untersuchungen über das Eliminationsproblem der mathematischen logik, Mathematische Annalen 110(1935), 390–413.Google Scholar
2. 2.
Ackermann, W.: Solvable Cases of the Decision Problem, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1954.Google Scholar
3. 3.
Van Benthe, J.: Modal Logic and Classical Logic, Bibliopolis, Napoli, 1983.Google Scholar
4. 4.
Van Benthe, J.: Correspondence theory, in D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 2, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984, pp. 167–247.Google Scholar
5. 5.
Van Benthem, J.: Semantic parallels in natural language and computation, in H.-D. Ebbinghaus et al. (eds), Logic Colloquium, Granada 1987, 1989, pp. 331–375.Google Scholar
6. 6.
Doherty, P., Łukaszewicz, W. and Szałas, A.: A Characterization Result for Circumscribed Normal Logic Programs, Technical Report LITH-IDA-95-20, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 1995. Also to appear in Fundamenta Informaticae, 1996.Google Scholar
7. 7.
Doherty, P., Łukaszewicz, W. and Szałas, A.: General Domain Circumscription and Its First-Order Reduction, Technical Report LITH-IDA-95, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 1995. See also: Proceedings of FAPR’96(D. Gabbay, H. J. Ohlbach, eds.), LNAI 1085, Springer-Verlag, 1996, 93–109.Google Scholar
8. 8.
Gabbay, D. and Ohlbach, H. J.: Quantifier Elimination in Second-Order Predicate Logic, Technical Report MPI-I-92-231, Max-Planck Institut für Informatik, Saarbrücken, Germany, 1992.Google Scholar
9. 9.
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V.: Compiling circumscriptive theories into logic programs, in: Proc. 2nd Int. Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 346, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989, pp. 74–99.Google Scholar
10. 10.
Ginsberg, M. L.: A circumscriptive theorem prover, Artificial Intelligence 39(1989), 209–230.Google Scholar
11. 11.
Kartha, G. N. and Lifschitz, V.: A simple formalization of actions using circumscription, in Proc. 14th Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence, 1995.Google Scholar
12. 12.
Kolaitis, P. and Papadimitriou, C.: Some computational aspects of circumscription, in AAAI-88: Proc. 7th Nat. Conf. Artificial Intelligence, 1988, pp. 465–469.Google Scholar
13. 13.
Lifschitz, V.: Computing circumscription, in Proc. 9th Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1, 1985, pp. 121–127.Google Scholar
14. 14.
Lifschitz, V.: Pointwise circumscription, in M. Ginsberg (ed.), Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, 1988, pp. 179–193.Google Scholar
15. 15.
Lifschitz, V.: Circumscription, in D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger and J. A. Robinson (eds), Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning, Handbook of Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol.3, Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
16. 16.
Lifschitz, V.: Nested abnormality theories, Artificial Intelligence 74(2) (1995), 351–365.Google Scholar
17. 17.
Löwenheim, L.: Über Möglichkeiten im Relativekalkül, Mathematische Annalen(1915), 137–148.Google Scholar
18. 18.
McCarthy, J.: Circumscription, a form of nonmonotonic reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13(1–2) (1980), 27–39.Google Scholar
19. 19.
Przymusinski, T.: An algorithm to compute circumscription, Artificial Intelligence 38(1991), 49–73.Google Scholar
20. 20.
Rabinov, A.: A generalization of collapsible cases of circumscription (research note), Artificial Intelligence 38(1989), 111–117.Google Scholar
21. 21.
Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13(1980), 81–132.Google Scholar
22. 22.
Szałas, A.: On the correspondence between modal and classical logic: An automated approach, J. Logic and Computation 3(1993), 605–620.Google Scholar