A complete classification of the complexity of propositional abduction

SIAM Journal on Computing

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 207-229

  Creignou, Nadia ^a   Zanuttini, Bruno ^b  

^a AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE CAEN   (France)

Author keywords

Abduction; Boolean constraints; Complexity; Prepositional logic

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BOOLEAN ALGEBRA; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; PROBLEM SOLVING;

ABDUCTION; BOOLEAN CONSTRAINTS; PREPOSITIONAL LOGIC;

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY;

EID: 33746412566     PISSN: 00975397     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1137/S0097539704446311     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. J. AMILHASTRE, H. FARGIER, AND P. MARQUIS, Consistency restoration and explanations in dynamic CSPS - Application to configuration, Artificial Intelligence, 135 (2002), pp. 199-234.
2. E. BÖHLER, N. CREIGNOU, S. REITH, AND H. VOLLMER, Playing with Boolean Blocks, Part II: Post's Lattice with Applications to Complexity Theory, in Complexity Theory Column 43, ACM-SIGACT News, Vol. 35, ACM, New York, 2004, pp. 22-35.
3. E. BÖHLER, S. REITH, H. SCHNOOR, AND H. VOLLMER, Bases for Boolean co-clones, Inform. Process. Lett., 96 (2005), pp. 59-66.
4. M. BOUZID AND A. LIGEZA, Temporal causal abduction, Constraints, 5 (2000), pp. 303-319.
5. T. BYLANDER, D. ALLEMANG, M. TANNER, AND J. JOSEPHSON, Some results concerning the computational complexity of abduction, in Proceedings of the 1st Annual International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'89), Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 1989, pp. 44-54.
6. S. COSTE-MARQUIS AND P. MARQUIS, Characterizing consistency-based diagnoses, in Proceedings of the 5th Annual International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics (AIMATH'98), 1998; available online from http://rutcor.rutgers.edu/~amai/ aimath98/.
7. N. CREIGNOU, S. KHANNA, AND M. SUDAN, Complexity Classifications of Boolean Constraint Satisfaction Problems, SIAM Monogr. Discrete Math. Appl. 7, SIAM, Philadelphia, 2001.
8. N. CREIGNOU, P. KOLAITIS, AND B. ZANUTTINI, Preferred representations of Boolean relations, Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), 2005; available online from http://eccc.hpi-web.de/eccc-reports/2005/TR05-119/index.html.
9. R. DECHTER AND J. PEARL, Structure identification in relational data, Artificial Intelligence, 58 (1992), pp. 237-270.
10. A. DEL VAL, The complexity of restricted consequence finding and abduction, in Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'00), AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 2000, pp. 337-342.
11. T. EITER AND G. GOTTLOB, The complexity of logic-based abduction, 3. ACM, 42 (1995), pp. 3-42.
12. T. EITER AND K. MARINO, On computing all abductive explanations, in Proceedings of the 18th Annual National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'02), AAAI Press/MIT Press, 2002, pp. 62-67.
13. T. EITER AND K. MAKINO, Generating all abductive explanations for queries on propositional Horn theories, in Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the EACSL (CSL'03), Springer Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003, pp. 197-211.
14. K. ESHGHI, A tractable class of abduction problems, in Proceedings of the 13th Annual International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'93), Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 1993, pp. 3-8.
15. J.-J. HÉBRARD AND B. ZANUTTINI, An efficient algorithm for Horn description, Inform. Process. Lett., 88 (2003), pp. 177-182.
16. J. HOBBS, M. STICKEL, D. APPELT, AND P. MARTIN, Interpretation as abduction, Artificial Intelligence, 63 (1993), pp. 69-142.
17. P. JEAVONS, D. COHEN, AND M. GYSSENS, Closure properties of constraints, 3. ACM, 44 (1997), pp. 527-548.
18. S. KHANNA, M. SUDAN, AND L. TREVISAN, Constraint satisfaction: The approximability of minimization problems, in Proceedings of the 12th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC'97), IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 1997, pp. 282-296.
19. R. KHARDON AND D. ROTH, Reasoning with models, Artificial Intelligence, 87 (1996), pp. 187-213.
20. P. MARQUIS, Consequence finding algorithms, in Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems (DRUMS), Vol. 5, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000, pp. 41-145.
21. G. NORDH AND B. ZANUTTINI, Propositional abduction is almost always hard, in Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'05), IJCAI, Detroit, MI, 2005, pp. 534-539.
22. C. PAPADIMITRIOU, Computational Complexity, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1994.
23. W. QUINE, On cores and prime implicants of truth functions, Amer. Math. Monthly, 66 (1959), pp. 755-760.
24. R. REITER AND J. DE KLEER, Foundations of assumption-based truth maintenance systems: Preliminary report, in Proceedings of the 6th Annual National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'87), AAAI Pres, Menlo Park, CA, 1987, pp. 183-188.
25. T. SCHAEFER, The complexity of satisfiability problems, in Proceedings of the 10th Annual Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC'78), ACM, New York, 1978, pp. 216-226.
26. B. SELMAN AND H. LEVESQUE, Abductive and default reasoning: A computational core, in Proceedings of the 8th Annual National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'90), AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 1990, pp. 343-348.
27. M. STUMPTNER AND F. WOTAWA, Diagnosing tree-structured systems, Artificial Intelligence, 127 (2001), pp. 1-29.
28. B. ZANUTTINI, New polynomial classes for logic-based abduction, J. Artificial Intelligence Res., 19 (2003), pp. 1-10.
29. B. ZANUTTINI AND J.-J. HÉBRARD, A unified framework for structure identification, Inform. Process. Lett., 81 (2002), pp. 335-339.