Comparative Succinctness of KR Formalisms.pptVIP

Comparative Succinctness of KR Formalisms Paolo Liberatore Outline The problem; Direct proofs; Compilability proofs; Applications of succinctness. Representation: Explicit/Succinct Explicit: a set of propositional models (tuples of binary values); Implicit: a propositional formula. Explicit: an ordering of models; Implicit: a formula in a language for preference representation. Stupid Example x1=Italian x2=French, x3=German Ciccio is either Italian or French or German: Explicit: x1x2x3, x1-x2x3, x1x2-x3, … Succinct: x1?x2?x3 Explicit: all possible cases; Succinct: can be even more intuitive. Running example Knowledge: a set of modes; KB: something representing a set of models Language: method for associating a KB to a set of models (and vice versa). Example of languages: set of models, 3CNFs, set of terms, formulae, 3CNFs+new variables, default logic, etc. Expressivity Given: two languages LA and LB; Question: does every set of models that can be expressed in LA be expressed in LB? Not in this talk! Succinctness Given: two languages LA and LB; Question: do every set of models that can be expressed in LA be expressed in LB in polynomial space? This talk is about this. Reformulation The question is the same as: Can every knowledge base K1 in LA be translated into a K2 in LB such that: K1 and K2 express the same set of modes; K2 is at most polynomially larger than K1 Notation Model: I1, I2, I3,… Set of models: S Knowledge base: K1, K2, … Languages: LA, LB Results on Succinctness: 2 Kinds Possibilty of polysize translations: ad-hoc proofs (not in this talk); Impossibility: Direct proofs; Proofs based on complexity classes. Direct Proofs: 2 (Sub-)kinds Based only on combinatorial arguments; Based on circuit complexity theory. Not a theoretical difference. A Trivial Direct Proof Two languages: LA: a KB is a set of complete terms LB: a KB is a 3CNF Terms: {x1x2x3, -x1x2x3, x1-x2x3, …} 3CNF: x1? x2? x3 LB (3CNFs) is “obviously” more succinct. Considerations