Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, H. Prade (1993)
Proc. of the 9th UAI
J. Kleer (1987)
An Assumption-Based TMSArtif. Intell., 28
B. Nebel (1991)
Belief Revision and Default Reasoning: Syntax-Based Approaches
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, H. Prade (1993)
Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge basesArXiv, abs/1303.1503
D. Dubois, J. Lang, H. Prade (1992)
Inconsistency in possibilistic knowledge bases: to live with it or not live with it
C. Cayrol, M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex (1995)
Proc. of ECSQARU-95
R. Dechter, A. Dechter (1988)
Belief Maintenance in Dynamic Constraint Networks
D. Lehmann (1995)
Another perspective on default reasoningAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 15
Marco Cadoli, M. Schaerf (1993)
A Survey of Complexity Results for Nonmonotonic LogicsJ. Log. Program., 17
S. Benferhat, C. Cayrol, D. Dubois, J. Lang, H. Prade (1993)
Inconsistency Management and Prioritized Syntax-Based Entailment
(1995)
Contribution a l' etude des relations d'inf erence non- monotone combinant inf erence classique et pr ef erences
Henry Kautz, B. Selman (1989)
Hard Problems for Simple Default LogicsArtif. Intell., 49
David Johnson (1991)
A Catalog of Complexity Classes
Gadi Pinkas, R. Loui (1992)
Reasoning from Inconsistency: A Taxonomy of Principles for Resolving Conflict
K. Brace, R. Rudell, R. Bryant (1990)
Efficient implementation of a BDD package27th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference
R. Bryant (1992)
Symbolic Boolean manipulation with ordered binary-decision diagramsACM Comput. Surv., 24
L. Zadeh, J. Kacprzyk (1992)
Fuzzy Logic for the Management of Uncertainty
R. Reiter (1987)
A Logic for Default ReasoningArtif. Intell., 13
(1994)
Gestion de l'inconsistance dans les bases de connaissances : une approche syntaxique basée sur la logique des pénalités
Goran Gogic, C. Papadimitriou, M. Sideri (1994)
Incremental Recompilation of Knowledge
B. Efron, R. Tibshirani (1994)
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
P. Gärdenfors, D. Makinson (1994)
Nonmonotonic Inference Based on ExpectationsArtif. Intell., 65
C. Cayrol, V. Royer, C. Saurel (1992)
Management of Preferences in Assumption-Based Reasoning
Goran Gogic, C. Papadimitriou, M. Sideri (1997)
Incremental Recompilation of KnowledgeArXiv, cs.AI/9801101
G. Gottlob (1992)
Complexity Results for Nonmonotonic LogicsJ. Log. Comput., 2
B. Selman, Henry Kautz (1991)
Knowledge Compilation using Horn Approximations
Thomas Eiter, G. Gottlob (1992)
Complexity of Propositional Knowledge Base Revision
M.R. Garey, D.S. Johnson (1979)
Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NPcompleteness
Thomas Eiter, G. Gottlob (1992)
On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactualsArtif. Intell., 57
(1994)
A logical approach to solve dynamic CSPs: Preliminary report
C. Cayrol, M. Lagasquie-Schiex (1995)
Non-monotonic Syntax-Based Entailment: A Classification of Consequence Relations
R. Bryant (1986)
Graph-Based Algorithms for Boolean Function ManipulationIEEE Transactions on Computers, C-35
C. Lee (1959)
Representation of switching circuits by binary-decision programsBell System Technical Journal, 38
F. Bouquet, Philippe Jégou (1995)
Solving Over-Constrained CSPs Using Weighted OBDDs
Thomas Eiter, G. Gottlob (1993)
The complexity of logic-based abduction
D. Mitchell, B. Selman, H. Levesque (1992)
Hard and Easy Distributions of SAT Problems
We rst suppose that B is Lex -preferred to C. Let B be the complement of B in E and
T.H. Cormen, C.E. Leiserson, R.L. Rivest (1990)
Introduction to Algorithms
(1993)
Comparaison de relations d'inf erence non-monotone : etude de complexit
J. Fernández, J. Minker (1994)
Disjunctive Deductive Databases
G. Brewka (1989)
Preferred Subtheories: An Extended Logical Framework for Default Reasoning
M. Garey (1979)
Johnson: computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of np- completeness (freeman
The purpose of this paper is to outline various results regarding the computational complexity and the algorithms of nonmonotonic entailment in different coherence‐based approaches. Starting from a (non necessarily consistent) belief base E and a pre‐order on E, we first present different mechanisms for selecting preferred consistent subsets. Then we present different entailment principles in order to manage these multiple subsets. The crossing point of each generation mechanism m and each entailment principle p defines an entailment relation $$ (E, \leqslant )\left| \sim \right.^{p,m} \Phi $$ which we study from the computational complexity point of view. The results are not very encouraging since the complexity of all these nonmonotonic entailment relations is, in most restricted languages, larger than the complexity of monotonic entailment. So, we decided to extend Binary Decision Diagrams technics, which are well suited to the task of solving NP‐hard logic‐based problems. Both theoretical and experimental results are described along this line in the last sections.
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence – Springer Journals
Published: Oct 4, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.