On-line estimation of matching complexity in first order logic

  • Attilio Giordana
  • Lorenza Saitta
Communications 1A Logics for AI
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1609)


The expressiveness of First Order Logic (FOL) languages is severely counterbalanced by the complexity of matching formulas on a universe. Matching is an instance of the class of Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSP), which have shown to undergo a phase transition with respect to two order parameters: constraint density and constraint tightness. This paper analyzes the problem of satisfying FOL Horn clauses in the light of these recent results. By means of an extensive experimental analysis, we show how Horn clause verification exhibits a typical phase transition with respect to the number of binary (or greater arity) predicates, and with respect to the ratio between the number of constants in the universe and the cardinality of the basic predicates extension.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anglano C., Giordana A., Lo Bello G., and Saitta L. (1998). “An Experimental Evaluation of Coevolutive Concept Learning”. In Proc. 15th Int. Conf. on Machine Learning (Madison, WI), pp. 19–27.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheeseman P., Kanefsky B., and Taylor W.M. (1991). “Where the Really Hard Problems Are”. In Proc. 12th Int. Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence (Sidney, Australia), pp. 331–337.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gent I.P., and Walsh T. (1996). “The TSP Phase Transition”. Artificial Intelligence, 88, 349–358.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giordana A., Neri F., Saitta L., and Botta M. (1998). “Integrating Multiple Learning Strategies in First Order Logics”, Machine Learning, 27, 209–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hogg T., Huberman B.A., and Williams C.P. (Eds.) (1996). Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Frontiers in Problem Solving: Phase Transitions and Complexity, 81 (1–2).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hogg T., Huberman B.A., and Williams C.P. (1996). Artificial Intelligence, 81, 1–15.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Michalski R.S. (1980). “Pattern recognition as a rule-guided inductive inference”. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-2, 349–361.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prosser P. (1996). “An Empirical Study of Phase Transitions in Binary Constraint Satisfaction Problems”. Artificial Intelligence, 81, 81–110.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Selman B., and Kirkpatrick S. (1996). “Critical Behavior in the Computational Cost of Satisfiability Testing”, Artificial Intelligence, 81, 273–296.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith B.M. (1994). “Phase Transition and the Mushy Region in Constraint Satisfaction”. In Proc. European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), pp. 125–129.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith B.M., and Dyer M.E. (1996). “Locating the Phase Transition in Binary Constraint Satisfaction Problems”, Artificial Intelligence, 81, 155–181.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walsh T. (1998). “The Constrainedness Knife-Edge”. In Proc. 15th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (Madison, Wisconsin, USA), pp. 406–411.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Williams C.P., Hogg T. (1994). “Exploiting the Deep Structure of Constraint Problems”. Artificial Intelligence, 70, 73–117.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang W., and Korf R.E. (1996). “A Study of Complexity Transition on the Asymmetric Travelling Salesman Problem”. Artificial Intelligence, 81, 223–239.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Attilio Giordana
    • 1
  • Lorenza Saitta
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie AvanzateUniversità del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro”AlessandriaItaly

Personalised recommendations